May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Who Rules America ?
A slightly skeptical view on the US political establishment and foreign policy
If Ronald Reagan was America's neo-Julius Caesar, his adopted son was the first George Bush (just as J.C. adopted Augustus).
And look what THAT progeny wrought. I fully expect that over the next century, no fewer than seven Bushes will have run or become president
(mimicking the Roman Caesarian line). Goodbye, American Republic.
Skepticism is a useful quality that some people naturally possess and other can develop, but it not a panacea. As such
any "Skeptical" or even "Slightly skeptical" paged by definition suffer from "confirmation bias". They postulate that only information
that does not correlate well with official position is worth presenting. The reality is more complex than that. There is
no grantee that such skeptical opinion is correct. And in retrospect many such opinion, which look highly plausible in the heat of the
day, look naive and unsubstantiated ten years after. Been there, saw that.
Also, while not so lucrative as shilling for government, adhering to anything that differ to government position is too simplistic
an approach. Especially in the long run, as historical forces in action at the particular moment are often unknown and not evident to
participants of the events.
Those considerations probably should be kept in mind when reading those pages. While skeptical opinion is an excellent tool for destroying
propaganda stereotypes it is your own task to integrate them into your new understanding of the situation. Sometime that requires integration
under some new paradigm, or rejection based on the new paradigm for particular historical situation. The problem with history
is that the real meaning of events often became clear only a centruty or so after they occure.
The central for this set of "slightly skeptical" Softpanorama pages is the idea that we live in neoliberal society and will
continue to live in it for some type despite the crisis it experiences now. Because there is no viable alternative on the horizon and
resurrection of New Deal capitalism is not possible as the countervailing forces that existed to keep financial oligarchy in check dissipated,
and part of them (top management of corporations) joined the former enemy.
Hundreds of corporations, including Starbucks, Amazon, and Netflix, have signed a letter signaling their opposition to election
integrity efforts in numerous states, promising to oppose any related legislation they deem "discriminatory."
The effort, led by former American Express chief executive Kenneth Chenault and Merck chief executive Kenneth Frazier, both of
whom recently
led
a
group of black business leaders urging corporations to take a stand against election integrity efforts, has corporations vowing
to stand against "any discriminatory legislation," representing what the
New
York Times
deemed
"the
broadest coalition yet to weigh in on the issue."
"We stand for democracy," the statement
reads
.
"A beautifully American idea, but a reality denied to many for much of this nation's history. As Americans, we know that in our
democracy we should not expect to agree on everything":
However, regardless of our political affiliations, we believe the very foundation of our electoral process rests upon the
ability of each of us to cast our ballots for the candidates of our choice. For American democracy to work for any of us, we
must ensure the right to vote for all of us. We all should feel a responsibility to defend the right to vote and to oppose any
discriminatory legislation or measures that restrict or prevent any eligible voter from having an equal and fair opportunity
to cast a ballot.
"Voting is the lifeblood of our democracy," the statement continues, calling on Americans to take a "nonpartisan stand for this
most basic and fundamental right of all Americans."
Signers include Bank of America, Amazon,
Estée
Lauder
, Eventbrite, General Motors, Netflix, Starbucks, Synchrony, Nordstrom, PayPal, Peloton, Pinterest, United Airlines,
Twitter, Under Armour, and more.
Some, such as Coca-Cola and Delta, which spoke out after Georgia passed its election integrity law, did not add their names to
the list, nor did Home Depot
, as the
Times
reported:
Coca-Cola and Delta, which condemned the Georgia law after it was passed, declined to add their names, according to people
familiar with the matter. Home Depot also declined, even though its co-founder Arthur Blank said in a call with other business
executives on Saturday that he supported voting rights. Another Home Depot co-founder, Ken Langone, is a vocal supporter of
Mr. Trump.
Coca-Cola and Delta declined to comment. Home Depot said in a statement on Tuesday that "the most appropriate approach for us
to take is to continue to underscore our belief that all elections should be accessible, fair and secure."
JPMorgan Chase also declined to sign the statement despite a personal request from senior Black business leaders to the
chief executive, Jamie Dimon, according to people briefed on the matter. Mr. Dimon has publicly declared that he supports
Black Lives Matter and made a statement on voting rights before many other companies, saying, "We believe voting must be
accessible and equitable."
"It should be clear that there is overwhelming support in corporate America for the principle of voting rights," Chenault said.
While the statement does not list specific state election efforts, it follows the debate over Georgia's recently signed election
integrity law, which the left has
inundated
with
misinformation, including the false claims it eliminates "Souls to the Polls," thereby suppressing minority votes. In reality,
the law expands ballot access in several ways, including by
increasing
the
mandatory days for early weekend voting.
"The nuts and bolts of [the law] are this, it makes it easy to vote and hard to cheat," Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp (R)
said
during
a March appearance on
Breitbart
News Daily
:
The biggest -- probably the top four things to me -- is it replaces a signature match with a voter ID on absentee ballots. It
secures ballot drop boxes around the clock It also requires poll workers to continue tabulating ballots until all votes are
counted and then it actually -- contrary to what the national media and those that are profiting off of this whole exercise of
not being truthful with people -- expands voting access, especially on the weekends.
A Rasmussen Reports survey
released
last
this week revealed a majority of likely voters, or 60 percent, believe it is more important to make sure there is no cheating in
elections rather than prioritizing making it "easier for everybody to vote." Additionally, a majority of likely voters, including
a majority of black voters,
reject
the
notion that voter ID laws are discriminatory against some voters.
Dementia Joe and his coterie of enablers have embarked on a foreign policy that is likely to result in a new war that will
endanger America and further a growing perception that the United States is weak and divided. There are three troublesome
flashpoints (Ukraine, China and Iran) that could explode at any time and catapult our nation into a costly, deadly military
confrontation. Topping the list is the Ukraine.
The corrupt dealings in Ukraine over the last four years by Joe and Hunter Biden leaves them completely compromised and
subject to coercion, even blackmail. With this as a backdrop the decade long effort by the United States to weaken Russia's
influence in eastern Ukraine has been revived with Biden's arrival in the White House.
Let me first introduce you to some essential facts:
Larry Johnson,
If the Ukraine blows so will Syria! Then the situation might transition from nemesis to tisis in short order. Here is a
strangely appropriate analysis with just one word blanked out.
In the
years ahead, _____________ will assuredly find itself in new international crises involving nations or groups that have
powerful leaders. In some cases, these leaders may have a special, dangerous mindset that is the result of a
"hubris-nemesis complex." This complex involves a combination of hubris (a pretension toward an arrogant form of
godliness) and nemesis (a vengeful desire to confront, defeat, humiliate, and punish an adversary, especially one that
can be accused of hubris). The combination has strange dynamics that may lead to destructive, high-risk behavior.
Attempts to deter, compel, or negotiate with a leader who has a hubris-nemesis complex can be ineffectual or even
disastrously counterproductive when those attempts are based on concepts better suited to dealing with more normal
leaders.
https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2005/MR461.pdf
We, too, pray for sanity.
Ishmael Zechariah
Reply
Larry, I unfortunately agree with your observations and conclusion.
I would add that in my opinion, the Russians are a lot more determined, as are the Chinese and Iranians, then the
generally self absorbed younger generations in the West. "Woke" culture has no answer to sunken warships, downed
aircraft and body bags. Do the SJWs want to die for LBGTIQ rights in Russia or another of their pet obsessions de jour?
I don't think so.
My concern for President Biden and America is that, if Ukraine attacks, unless President Putin succeeds in delivering a
very short, sharp and successful lesson to Ukraine there is not going to be a clear path forward to a negotiated
armistice. If that doesn't happen through bad luck, the fog of war, etc. Then I don't think Biden has the intelligence
to get us out of the mess.
If you add to that the possibility that Zelensky may demand American support "or else" when he starts to lose then we
are in very very dangerous territory. If I were the Chinese, I would just stand back and watch. Taiwanese independence
is a meaningless concept without American military backing and I'm sure the Taiwanese know it.
The wild card to me is what is Israel's attitude? Is it possible that they might be a moderating influence for a change?
Reply
Oh, yeah .!!!!!! The country that shoots women and children who get too close to the fence they have constructed in
PALESTINE on other people"s land will be the moderating party. Or maybe Mad Dog Bolton.
Try getting real, and come up with real world situations. Not some fantasy of killers acting like kittens. The
Russians seem more balanced in responding to such provocations than the U.S. & it's gang of follower- puppets. How
long would any of the these follower-puppets be able to go toe to toe with Russia in all-out-war situation. I'd bet
less than 24 hours, probably far less. Or as a Chinese General once asked: would you want to give up Los Angeles to
save Tiwan? The U.S. doesn't seem to have any sort of reliable anti-missile defence system. Would Ole Uncle Joe
really like to get into such pissing contest so early on in his term of presidency? Maybe I am wrong, but from what I
have seen so far, he just seems to be throwing spaghetti at the wall to see what sticks. In this game, if one
blunders, the walls vanish, an the lights go out.
Reply
Russia moves cannon boats and amphibious vessels from Caspian Sea to the Black Sea, but in reality these combatants are
perfect for operations in shallow waters and that means Azov Sea and Ukraine's South-Western flank. These ships can form
both a surface group capable of dispatching anything Ukraine may have on Azov Sea, plus form excellent tactical
amphibious group which can land a battalion or two of marines and support them with fire from the sea, both artillery
and MLRS. Of course, there are other forces Russia has there but it is a good way to give Caspian Flotilla a chance for
yet another combat deployment, after its missile ships spearheaded first salvos of 3M14 cruise missiles at ISIS targets
in Syria in 2015. Here are some of those ships:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/Caspian_Corvette_Astrakhan_2.jpg
Russia has an overwhelming firepower in the Black Sea proper and whatever the US is sending there is primarily for ISR
purposes in case Ukies go bananas and decide to attack Donbass in death by cop scenario. The US will not interfere in
any meaningful way other than supplying Ukies with recon data.
Reply
It is bigger than Biden or even the Military Industrial Complex. The establishment foreign policy apparatus transcends
political parties and has a continuity that survives changes in administrations. It is obsessed with Russia. It opposed
not just communism but Russia itself so when the Berlin wall fell for it the Cold War never ended and it successfully
pursued the the break up and looting of the Russian Empire and the relentless eastward march of NATO. Putin pushed back
on this resulting in him being demonized by the orchestrated Western media. Trump for all his faults had at least a
halfway rational view of these matters but now the Borg is back and spoiling for a fight. I never cease to be amazed by
the stupidity of these people, their apparent lack of understanding of the importance of Ukraine and Sevastopol in
Russian history and their inability to read a map or know the basics of military operations to see the obvious
indefensibility of Ukraine's eastern border. The danger now is that Ukraine's leaders will overestimate the support they
think they have from the United States and start something they can't stop. This has the feel of 1914.
Reply
Or the Georgian/Russian of 2008 when Georgia attacked on Russian territory. President Bush was talking tough, saying
he would send aid to Georgia on warships. But the rules governing ships entering the Bosferus proscribed such stuff,
aND Bush ended doing nothing. The Russians quickly neutralized the Georgian forces and pushed deeper into Georgia
where they currently remain. The odiot who started the mess was forced out of Georgia & was afterwards appointed a
governor or some such in Ukraine. But I think that too went bad. Such is the level of governance in Ukraine.
Reply
The last 5 Ukros killed were killed by mines. The contact line has many zones where minefields are employed by both
sides. It appears some were killed in their own minefield according to local reports. Civilians in the LPR and DPR have
been killed by incoming fire, most recently a 5 year old boy. Of course OSCE is worthless except as a "bean counter";
who fired what and where is too much to record..
Reply
US defence attache with a group was up at the front yesterday as well as the comic.
Ukraine really has its back up against the wall financially. This year with big interest payments due and no way to get
the funds as the IMF seems to hit its limit on their 'we're never getting it back' budget. Their only steady source of
funds is ironically Russia with the gas transit fees guaranteed at $7B total over the next four years, much of which
will go to the EU and IMF as interest payments. After that the gas fees will drop to zero as the gas transits move to
TurkStream and NS2. With nothing to pay Russia, apart from the little mentioned oil transit fees, Russia may stop
shipping gas/coal/electricity for local consumption as well. At that point either Ukraine crashes or someone else has to
pick up the bill.
Although Kiev will lose dramatically there are very good reasons why Kiev would push the button. Will they ever again
have this PR opportunity to play the innocent victim?
Reply
Earlier this morning I saw a pic of Zelenskiy visiting the front, behind him was a makeshift field tent with a sign on
it, the sign is in Ukrainian but translates as "Vietnam". Is Biden serious about backing Zelenskiy, I guess we'll find
out soon enough.
Reply
wondering if anyone can point me to a fairly, anyway, reliable, (assuming one exists) 'war games scenario' document on
an attempted invasion of Taiwan by China. Intuitively, it would seem a difficult challenge, especially given China's
lack of any appreciable experience in seaborne invasion. Thanks in advance for any help anyone can provide, and my
apologies upfront LJ if you deem this offtopic.
Reply
Not meaning to be a smart-alec about it, but why assume that an invasion has to be "seaborne"?
In WW2 the Royal Navy had total control of the waters around Crete. So the Germans simply went over the top of them
and invaded the island from the air.
It was very definitely touch and go for a while until German paratroopers managed to capture an airfield, and from
that point it was all over.
No idea how well defended Taiwanese airfields are, but the PLA would only need to capture one and, again, the final
result will not be in doubt.
Reply
well, the quick answer to your question would be 'fine, alter my initial question to include war games scenarios
on airborne attacks on Taiwan. The glib answer might be, Taiwan is not Crete. And the Chinese PLA are not the
Wehrmacht. Who, by the time of the Crete attack had built up a record that included many successful airborne
attacks. I see no such history with the PLA. That, by no means rules it out. But, in any event, I can't imagine
the PLA would role the dice, SOLELY, on an airborne attack. They would have to have a seaborne plan of attack, in
case Plan A failed. So, in any event, I would be still be in search of that war games scenario.
Reply
Absent any new evidence, I am going to continue to assume that this is really about Nordstream II. The Biden Junta are
probably planning on having their Ukrainian cat's paw make a lunge at DNR/LNR, forcing the Russians to intervene
directly. Ukraine, of course, is not actually a full NATO member, so no Article 5 will be triggered. Instead, Washington
just self-righteously hollers 'Russian aggression!' and demands that Merkel immediately shut down Nordstream II -- the
Russian pipeline into Germany -- just before it's ready to go online.
And then, as a lush reward for their undying loyalty, the Germans get to import frack-gas and oil all the way from the
US at four or five times the market rate. Problem solved!
Reply
you are correct – the Ukraine state does not really want the return of the Donbass region let alone Crimea as it
would result in a complete change in the balance of power in the Ukraine with the Russian-speaking population being
able to form the government, as it had done pre 2014. They really want to push the Germans into stopping Nord Stream
2 by provoking Russia
Reply
Struggling to understand how a Ukraine with such supposedly strong ties to National Socialists of a century ago managed
to end up with a Jewish comedian as President.
Reply
Here's the viewpoint of Ukraine Army's snipers who are primarily composed of volunteer housewives. While to D.C. and
Moscow, it's part of their sphere of political chess, however to those on the front lines, it is survival and protection
of their loved ones.
Almost half a century ago, I took a course in the German language as a refresher during the summer session at my local
junior college. The woman who taught the course was a native Ukrainian. She told the class a little about her
background.
When the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, she was in her mid- to late-teens. She had an intense dislike (hatred) of the
Russians and took a job working for the German military government of occupation as an interpreter. She said they had
welcomed the Germans as liberators from the oppression of the Soviet Communists.
Later, when the Red Army juggernaut was rolling west through Ukraine, she realized that it would not be good for her
long-term prospects to remain at home. She chose to move west with the retreating German army. Subsequent to the end of
the war in Europe, she rattled around for awhile in displaced person camps, and ultimately made her way to the United
States.
I have no reason to doubt the veracity of her story. This was my first introduction to the enmity between the Russians
and the Ukrainians.
Reply
Biden is a tin-hat emperor moving tin soldiers in his bathtub at play time. Surrounded by self-selected idiots who make
him dangerous as hell. This is what his "return to decency" looks like? May he be struck down deaf and dumb.
Reply
Two front war – Russia moving into Ukraine at the same time China moves on Taiwan. They put their wet fingers up to the
wind to see which way the Biden operation blows.
And they could not escape the conclusion this was the time to strike if there is any fortuitous time to strike. Biden
and his new team muddle deeply into reckless ineptitude. And Kamala Harris doesn't have anything to wear.
Reply
An odd thesis. The Russians are signally very, very strongly that they do not want the Ukraine to start a war by
attacking the rebels in Donbass.
They could not be more explicit if they sent a hypersonic cruise missile through Zelensky's office window with a sign
on it that reads "Don't start something you won't even live to regret".
They very clearly do not think that this is "the time to strike", nor even that they think there is a "fortuitous
time" for them to go to war with Ukraine.
If Ukraine strikes first then, sure, they'll strike back. But I fail to see how anyone can come to the conclusion
that the Russians are provoking this when it is very clearly the Ukies and their promoters in the White House who are
pushing these buttons.
Similarly with Taiwan.
The Chinese are not provoking this. They made their red lines clear to everyone as far back as Nixon's trip to China
i.e. if the USA sticks to a one-China-policy then the mainland will refrain from using force against Taiwan.
But the USA is not sticking to the one-China-policy. Recent US diplomatic moves look exactly like what it is:
maneuverings to prepare for when the Taipei government declares independence.
Which is crazy.
But in both cases the USA may well provoke a conflict and then dump their patsies like a discarded toy.
Which would be beyond crazy. It would be an outcome so loopy that there isn't even a word to describe it.
Reply
Thank you for setting it straight.. it seems pretty evident Russia does not want a war but is sure as hell ready
to finish this business if a war is pushed on to them and pushed on to them by the Americans. Ukraine has been
armed by the U.S , funded by the IMF, and cheered by NATO. They will not do a single thing without their owners
permission.
Reply
Back in December 2020 Putin had an expanded meeting with his Defense Ministry Board. In it he laid out several items and
agendas to be carried out by the Military Staff.
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64684
March 24th saw Ukraine's Zelensky virtually declaring war against the Russian Federation. One can not rule out Zelensky
using the trade deals with Doha and use the direct flights between Kiev and Doha to smuggle in Jihad's from Syria and
Libya to fight in Donbas. Zelensky on March 3rd in a joint press conference with the European Council President in Kiev
stated that the retaking of Crimea from Russia was now Ukraine Official Policy.
https://asiatimes.com/2021/04/ukraine-redux-war-russophobia-and-pipelineistan/
Reply
Speaking of 'foreign policy', question is who will win out -- D.C. or Tel Aviv?
'The model' is headed to D.C. to try and convince our IC's head-cheeses that the Iran JCPOA isn't such a good deal, and
Tel Aviv is trying to get him an audience with his high-arsed the 'King', China Joe. If D.C. swallows 'the model's'
spiel, then they're bigger suckers than they already appear to be.
Assume this Mossad meeting will take place between Kackling Kamala who will be channeling Obama-Jarrett; or will it
be Stinking Liar Susan Rose channeling Obama-Jarrett? But the Big Guy will be out to lunch.
Reply
" voters still overwhelmingly support laws requiring that voters show identification before casting a ballot.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 75% of Likely U.S. Voters believe voters should be
required to show photo identification such as a driver's license before being allowed to vote. Only 21% are opposed to such a
requirement. (To see survey question wording,
click
here
.)
"Support for voter ID laws has actually
increased
since 2018
, when 67% said voters should be required to show photo identification such as a driver's license before being
allowed to vote.
Eighty-nine percent (89%) of Republicans support voter ID requirements, as do 60% of Democrats and 77% of voters not affiliated
with either major party."
Comment: In Virginia it was not necessary to present identification at a polling place untl about 20 years ago. This was a relic
of an older time when most Virginia communities were quite small and it was expected that one or more people would recognize
acitizen at the polling station,
IMO the time has come when national ID cards would be a good thing. The trick would be to make it as tamper proof as possible. pl
I recently got a new driver's license, the kind that complies with airport security in order to be able to fly. And boy, my
county Department of Motor Vehicles office was absolutely TOUGH, real hard asses, when it came to the documentation required to
qualify for such a license. I had to go back THREE TIMES with various documents in order to satisfy them and meet their criteria
EXACTLY, with no exceptions. So did my husband. I would hope that any national ID, if ever mandated, would be obtained by
fulfilling similarly rigorous standards and conscientious processing. I bet it would set off leftists and libertarian-leaning
rightists BIG TIME though, for different reasons: leftists would want lax standards and libertarians would oppose the notion
per
se
.
In the United States, the use of force by police accounts for 0.05% of male deaths, and
0.003% of female deaths, and a low overall share.
The ratio correlates with age and race and is unequal across racial groups.
Police use of force is responsible for 1.6% of all deaths involving black men between the
ages of 20 and 24 years. At the same age range, police are responsible for 1.2% of American
Indian/Alaska Native male deaths, 0.5% of Asian/Pacific Islander male deaths, 1.2% of Latino
male deaths, and 0.5% of white male deaths.
18 replies on "Risk of Being Killed by Police
Varies by Your Ethnicity"
I read this article with high hopes. Sadly, my hopes were dashed by an intellectually
dishonest use of statistics.
The article opens by claiming blacks have about 2.5 times the risk of dying at the hands of
the police over their lifetimes as whites. It then quantifies this lifetime risk of dying from
police violence for blacks as 1 in 1000. It provides no context for understanding these
numbers.
Heart disease 1 in 6
Cancer 1 in 7
All preventable causes of death 1 in 24
Chronic lower respiratory disease 1 in 27
Suicide 1 in 88
Opioid overdose 1 in 92
Falls 1 in 106
Motor-vehicle crash 1 in 107
Gun assault 1 in 289
Pedestrian incident 1 in 543
Motorcyclist 1 in 899
Drowning 1 in 1,128
Apparently a black's lifetime risk of dying at the hands of the police is close to anyone's
risk from drowning, and about a tenth as great as dying in a motor vehicle crash. Very few
people obsess over those risks -- why the media frenzy about dying at the hands of the
police?
By far the most significant finding from the author's analysis is that far more men die at
the hands of the police than do women across all races. ("A women's lifetime risk of being
killed by police is about 20 times lower than men's risk.") The difference between male and
female outcomes is an order of magnitude greater than the largest difference in outcomes among
men of different races, or among women of different races.
It is intellectually dishonest to focus attention on racial disparities when obvious sexual
disparities dominate the statistics.
It also seems odd to discuss racial disparities in women's overall lifetime risk of dying
from police violence, when a black woman's risk is only about 1 in 20,000 in the first place.
For perspective, the National Safety Council reported that 1 in 2,535 people will die of
choking on food, and 1 in 8,248 will die from sunstroke. It seems that a back woman's chance of
dying at the hands of the police is much lower than the media suggests.
Unfortunately the author chose to show death rates per 100,000 from police encounters
without providing a contextual comparison with other causes of death. How do these death rates
compare to well-known public health problems like heart diseases, cancer, or opiate overdose
deaths for example?
The author's reported death rate from police violence of 3 per 100,000 among 20-year-old
blacks is lower than the overall rate of death from suicide, homicide, cancer, and heart
disease at the same age. Are the 3.5 deaths per 100,000 among 30-year-old blacks more
unusual?
As before, the death rate for everyone from suicide, homicide, cancer, and heart disease
greatly exceeds the death rate for blacks from police violence. Note that neither heart disease
nor cancer is usually considered a major public health threat to 20-30 year-olds of any
ethnicity. Note too that death rates from suicide at ages 20 and 30 surpass death rates from
heart disease and cancer, and are six times higher than the author's stated rate of death from
police violence. A rational concern about premature death should probably focus on suicide and
assaults rather than police violence.
The author's conclusion that "Various races and ages face a higher risk of death or injury
when confronted by police intervention" is simply not supported by the data presented. That
conclusion would require an analysis of death rates per 100,000 encounters with police, rather
than death rates per 100,000 people.
Sadly, the author left out any estimate of how many police encounters occur over a lifetime
within each segment studied, and how many of those encounters do NOT end in death. This
information is crucial for calculating how frequently an encounter with police officers ends in
death. If, for example, one group has ten times as many lifetime encounters with the police, it
would be reasonable to expect ten times as many deaths in that group. This may well be the
situation with men versus women. If the high encounter group had more or less than ten times as
many deaths, that would be cause for investigation into possible discrimination.
Obviously if certain ethnic groups have more encounters with the police than others, that
difference should be a matter for concern and further investigation. It might be a consequence
of some form of racial inequality. However, it helps no one to simply assume that differences
in death rates per 100,000 are evidence of racial injustice.
If racial discrimination in policing exists, it seems likely to show up in the frequency or
number of lifetime encounters with the police. But even knowing numbers of encounters is not
enough to evaluate possible discrimination because the nature of a police encounter influences
how much force is likely to be used by the police. For example, someone robbing a gas station
or store with a gun seems far more likely to face police violence than a shoplifter. Someone
drunk or high on drugs seems more likely to face police violence than a sober person. It seems
reasonable to ask whether factors that increase risk during police encounters occur more
frequently in certain ethnic groups, and if so why.
The author's observation about the lower rates of death among Asians and Pacific Islanders
is important and warrants serious study. Do people of this ethnicity have fewer encounters with
the police? If so, why? Are the encounters of a different kind than black encounters with the
police? Do Asians behave differently than blacks when encountering the police? What actual
factors lead to the seemingly different results across ethnicities?
Answering these questions with "structural racism" or a something similar provides no
actionable way to help improve results for any ethnicity. Calling police violence a health
problem also does nothing to improve outcomes.
The author seems to have assumed from the beginning that policing is the problem. As a
result he completely ignored at least two important questions:
1. Why do most encounters with the police across all ethnicities NOT end in death?
2. Are there behaviors in these many non-deadly encounters that can be taught to people and
police to reduce the chance of police violence?
It seems worth reflecting on these questions and seeking answers to them.
As a final note, it took me less than five minutes to find data to put this author's
statistics in context. I can only wonder why the author did not take the time to do the
same.
Well yeah, "demos" are running all this having robbed any meaning from that traditional
labor/common man viewpoint (think FDR) thus in full cahoots with the global cabal which is
gates and all the other devils, which must be stopped. Too long to list, here is astonishing
summary big food/pharma/chemical/oil/$
"Why was all of this allowed to happen in the first place?"
The apparent change in stance is unlikely a ruse because a ruse presumes that Russia would
take the bait.
The change is unlikely due to a miscalculation on Ukraine's part because Ukraine was well
aware of the strength of the juggernaut just to the east before Ukraine sent men and materiel
that way.
The change is unlikely due to a miscalculation on Washington's part because a likely
drubbing of Ukraine with Washington sitting on the sidelines would result in a loss of
prestige vis a vis Russia and China.
I'd suggest the change -- if there really is such a change -- is more likely the result of
Germany, and maybe France, exerting simultaneous pressure on Washington and Kiev, coupled
with leading sectors of the bureaucracy in both Washington and Kiev agreeing with Merkel
(Washington for its own reasons and Kiev because of Washington's instructions) that a war
does not advance their interests.
Washington is in a position similar to that of Britain prior to the Suez Crisis: one loss
away from losing its preeminence on the world stage. Losing that position over a conflict
involving, essentially, a gas pipeline to Germany is not worth the risk.
It's likely that Washington's apparent stance is symptomatic of significant discord
between the Neocons and the less belligerent of the foreign policy establishment. It appears
that the Neocons may have lost this round. One can expect the schism to continue to play out
over the coming years
vk@29 writes "[My comment@24] is nonsense: if Ukraine takes back the Donbas basin, it will
have full control over Crimea. The option of
'trading' the Donbas for Crimea doesn't exist."
It's hard to know how seriously this is meant. Luhansk and Donetsk are not *the* Donbas.
Kharkiv is culturally and economically as much Donbas, for a start. And Odessa is a major
center of Russian population, too, even if not part of the Donbas. At any rate, insofar as
the "Donbas" is essential to control Crimea, though, it is Kherson and Zaporizhye provinces
that control the water supply. And it is Mariupol's port that contests the Sea of Azov.
That's the part of Donbas that vk implies to be essential for full control of Crimea. But if
Mariupol is essential for full control, then Putin neither has full control now, nor does he
want it, because it is apparently Putin who pressured the rebels into leaving Mariupol in
Ukrainian hands. By the criteria vk uses here, Putin doesn't have full control of Crimea now.
This could be understood to show that in the long run Luhansk/Donetsk are untenable too,
trapped in a race to collapse with Kyiv. And it would show too that Putin needs a genuine
peace in Crimea, needs to do something, because in the long run, time is not on his/Russia's
side. The thing is of course, is that either vk doesn't mean what is actually written, or vk
won't draw the conclusions vk's own premises require.
Ukraine's leadership doesn't care about their civilians and soldiers. US and NATO
leadership care even less for them. In the current context actions speak far louder than
words.
Even the dimmest and most senile leaders can figure out some of the following:
• Russia is not bluffing. Bluffing is not their style.
• Neither the US nor NATO will put boots on the ground of Donbass or Crimea.
• Against Russia the US surface ships in the Black Sea are floating targets, as they are
anywhere else in the world.
• There won't be a Minsk3 agreement.
• Nord Stream 2 will be completed no matter what. For the respect, Russia doesn't need
the revenue so much.
If in fact Ukraine backs down, it will be a Biden continuation of Trump's off-repeated
stunt of walking to the edge and then backing off. You can't expect innovation from senile
players.
Crimea needs water badly with summer coming on.
Any Ukrainian or Russian advance cannot happen across bogs and mud. Wait until the rain
stops, or sink.
I saw somewhere that Zelensky actually thought of opening the canal sometime ago but was
"stopped". It was never made clear WHO ordered him not to, or who ordered him to start an
anti-Russian drive, or.....etc.
b's post undelines that the previous lines of cultural/liguistic division have not gone
away, and have probably hardened. The Nasty brigade are actually in lands that probably do
not appreciate them being there. (ie, the Russian speaking areas under Ukie control are
probably not overjoyed to become "permanent collateral damage")
*
Anyone else notice the large movement of Chinese ships in the South China Sea?
Doubled trouble for the Empire? They hardly get the time to concentrate on claiming "rights
of passage" through Indian territoral waters, or in the Black sea, or in the Artic, without
someone stirring the pot. Whatever next?
A diversion or just taking advantage of the limited scope of the attention span of whoever
is in command in the US ?
@vk "And that's the objective truth: if the Ukraine conquers the DPR and LPR, it will
essentially cut off Crimea from Russia."
How so? It doesn't seem to me that a hypothetical merger of DPR, LPR, and Ukraine would
have any effect on Crimea.
In fact, if DPR and LPR join according to the Minsk2 conditions, it could help, as they
would (theoretically) become a significant political factor on the national level. Which is
why Kiev is not interested in a peaceful unification.
And even a military conquest (which is what you're talking about) would create problems
for Kiev, as disenfranchising (or expelling) most of the population there might be somewhat
problematic.
"One should therefore consider that the sudden call for a renewed ceasefire might be a
ruse." --our host
Precisely. The US prefers to start its conflicts with a sucker punch, but that is only
possible if the target is unprepared and looking the other way. Russia only needs to let its
guard down and look away for a moment for the empire to take advantage of it. Notice how the
ukrops are not moving their attack forces back? They will attack while the US ships are in
the Black Sea to monitor the fighting and provide direction.
Donbass does not have strategic depth. The plan is to hit the republics with a suicide
bum-rush. America doesn't care how many of the ukrop aggressors are exterminated in the
attack so long as some units survive to take up positions in the city centers. The empire's
strategists figure that with a sudden enough and massive enough assault, and given at least
some element of surprise, this can be accomplished overnight. The ukrop cannon fodder will be
given orders to not bother securing any areas they overrun and instead continue to charge
forward.
Suicidal? Absolutely, because any Novorossiya troops that are overrun will regroup behind
the ukrop aggressors and pull back, cutting off the units that penetrated into the cities.
That's when those advance ukrop units will go all "Shock & Awe™" on the
urban civilians to draw the Novorossiya units away from their established positions and
demoralize them.
So long as the Russians are not caught with their pants down they should be able to easily
repel the ukrop assault. If they are thinking this through clearly then the Novorossiya
troops, with the Russians at their backs, should push for the Dniper in order to acquire that
much needed strategic depth. At the same time the Black Sea should be completely cleared of
any hostile vessels, and obviously that means the American ships.
I disagree about DNR and LNR are of importance for Russia to keep hold on Crimea. Crimea
secession was prior to the insurrection in eastern Ukraine, they tried to copy Crimean
secession (even held referenda in 2014) To the frustration of DNR/LNR activists as well as
many russian nationalists, the russian government has rejected all pleas to incorporate the
breakaway regions or Ukraine into Russia. On contrary, it has repeatedly tried to broker a
compromise, and the Minsk accords are part of. Putin even ostensibly bound his hands by
forcing a Duma decree in 2015, revoking the "Medvedyev doctrine" from 2008 Georgian conflict
which authorized use of force when ethnic Russians were threatened, Anyway, the russian
government could not abandon the insurgency in Donbas without risking to be toppled by
nationalists.
One should keep this in mind: Russia does not want the ethnically russian parts of Ukraine
which would comprise of most of it. It was not Russia who escalated the inner ukrainian
divide. And militarily, LNR and DNR are in no way helpful for Crimea. Normal relations
between the RF and Ukraine would be in Russia's interest, would belp both countries. But that
is what the West prevents at any cost, to the last Ukrainian. Only the dumb ukronazis don't
realize that.
@53 vk Ukraine will never get back DNR and LNR by military means, but, if at all, only via
a compromise alongside the Minsk accords. And if you speak to realistic Ukrainians (there are
not few, even in the nazi infested galicia and volyn), they all realize that Crimea is gone,
and that it always only grudgingly agreed to be an autonomous republic inside Ukraine until
2014.
Its not just the Fortuna laying pipe now, the Akadamik Cherskiy has been on the job for
about 10 day and she can lay pipe faster. According to the plans submitted to the Danes, in
whose waters they are laying, Fortuna is expected to finish in May whilst the AC has
permission until September but is expected to finish early.
As to the USN ships (Black sea regular USS Ross passed Gib inbound Med today) are not due in
until the start of next week and will leave early May. What their role, apart from being a
gesture of support for Ukraine, is is not clear. An obvious job of one, if not both, could be
to be tied up at a berth in Odessa harbour as a poison pill to try to make sure that Russia
does not attack that part of the coast. Were there to be an attack of course.
Seems to be a big mistake by the US to me. I can understand what they are trying to do
but, given the option above, if they stay at sea it will be a clear statement that they don't
want to get that involved. I'm sure it is not their intention to be so open in showing their
true objective.
Another possible reason for a delay until May is that the Orthodox Church celebrates its
Eater Sunday on the 2nd May.
William R Henry 52
There is no need to go to the Dneiper to gain sufficient strategic depth, not only would
that be a political nightmare but just stopping at the oblast borders should be sufficient.
Included in that would be Mariupol, the only Ukrainian port on the Sea of Azov. That would
make Donbass economically viable.
No need to clear the Black Sea, Russia totally dominates over, on and under it.
Wouldnt this be the second time that Zelinski used thread of conflict to help himself in
election?
It seems an important point. Why would B over look it, I wonder.
Declaring war and then declaring peace. I guess one cannot chose ones neighbors.
I thought Russia stood to benefit from war. They should keep pressure on Zelinski -
training, preparations and support of Donbass. Seems Russia is very measured with
assistance.
b. :
"It seems that order has come from Washington to stand down - at least for now."
The Postman Always Rings Twice
Bloomberg:
Secretary of State Antony Blinken is set to return to Brussels next week for more meetings
with NATO and European officials, according to people familiar with the matter, as the U.S.
grows increasingly concerned about Russian troop movements near Ukraine.
The meetings will take up most of the week,[...]
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin will be in Brussels at the same time, for a meeting with
NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg.
"Frank muses that just as the postman always rings a second time to make sure people
receive their mail, fate has made sure that he and Cora have both finally paid the price for
their crime.
"Schöne Wochenende". Next week will be interesting as last 3 were.
Maybe I missed it but there were elections in Ukraine last Sunday and
"The new Verkhovna Rada (parliament) of the Ukraine, elected on Sunday, will have an
overwhelming national mandate to negotiate peace terms to end the five-year civil
war.
You misssed it....
Those elections were in 2019....
Zelenski has been compromised since then... most notably via loss of his plutocrat
mentor...
The CIA/NSA/RightSector are firmly in charge, because Zelenski did not use his mandate to
throttle them.
The best he could have done, was to invite Russia in for the purpose of "stabilizing"
ukraine.
Western nations chided Russia for failing to turn up at talks in Vienna on Saturday aimed
at defusing tension over Ukraine, where a Russian troop buildup close to the border between
the two countries has sparked fears of renewed conflict.
MOSCOW, February 5. /TASS/. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov told a press conference
Friday following talks with EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy
Josep Borrell.
"Therefore, we organize our life coming from the premise that the EU is not a reliable
partner, at least at this stage,"
"I hope that the strategic review which is coming will finally pay attention to vital
interests of the European Union in its closest vicinity " Lavrov stressed.
"I hope that today's talks will help us reach a more constructive trajectory. We are
ready for it."
@b - "...why was all of this allowed to happen in the first place?"
J Swift offered a good clue in his
comment in the previous thread:
"the Nuland crowd have played right into Russia's hands, because the Ukraine is definitely
a place where Russia has escalation dominance. I suspect that when some of those famous
military channels began chatting, the Russians were not so friendly, and made it clear that
an offensive by the Ukies would not only free Russia's hand toward the Nazis and provide a
perfect excuse to rid the East and South of them, but that Russia would be specifically
targeting US/NATO "advisers," command centers, resupply aircraft or any aircraft entering
Ukrainian airspace, and would be just waiting for any US ship in the Black Sea to do
something remotely involving it in the conflict, such that it would be on the bottom in
minutes."
We know from Pepe Escobar's latest article ,
presenting highlights from the recent important interview with Nikolai Patrushev (Secretary
of the RF Security Council), that Patrushev, a very dangerous and serious man, enjoys
undiminished communications with Washington, including a March phone discussion with Jake
Sullivan, White House security advisor. If his interview is anything to go by, his candid
discussions with US leadership could have scared them totally awake.
Once again, it could well be that the neocons talked up a blazing firestorm that the
generals and security professionals ultimately had to pour water on.
Patrick Armstrong in his
latest article gives us ample evidence that Victoria Nuland, back in power and riding
high, is also vastly ignorant and imperceptive, incapable of learning or reflection, and
mediocre in her intelligence. The neocons, as Armstrong points out, have always failed. And
they have led the US down a path of loss.
If in fact this Ukraine adventure is over for the moment (if in fact it ever was real in
the first place), then it bears total resemblance to every other neocon stupid idea, that
goes as far down the path to ruin as it can, sometimes being stopped by wiser heads,
sometimes simply charging over the edge, into the abyss.
If Russia gets to choose, one assumes Russia would prefer no military activity in Ukraine.
And if Russia is forced into military action, one also assumes as best guess that Russia will
reshape the map to a better end for all. It could just be that Russia managed to communicate
this to the US, and that the US managed to hear.
@74 Yes but that doesn't really address b's question. Why was this allowed to happen in
the first place? We know all about Nuland and her cookies and encouragement from Washington.
But why was the Minsk agreement broken? Why do the Ukies keep lobbing shells into
Donbass?
Those troops are bored. I'm sticking with my vodka theory.
Just to clarify: Russia has already officially stated (many years ago) that it doesn't
want any other piece of the Ukraine (i.e. any other piece beyond Crimea). It wants the
Ukraine to survive in the form of a federalized State with the DPR and LPR enjoying high
levels of autonomy (a la Spain).
Ukraine is not profitable to Russia. It would drain its coffers were it to have to conquer
and absorb it entirely.
Time is in Russia's favor: let the Ukraine continue to serve as a financial black hole to
the IMF. Let the Western Ukrainians continue to emigrate en masse to Poland and then to the
rest of the EU and the UK. Russia has already received some 1 million Eastern Ukrainian;
those are probably the more well-educated, more productive Ukrainians, and they gave it some
relief from its chronic negative population problem - all of that without having to advance
one inch over continental Ukraine.
Germany vetoed any more provocations by the US or nato against the Donbass/Crimea that
would clearly call in massive Russian support. Crimea is now part of the Russian Federation;
an end of that part of the story - and there are several hundred thousand people in the
Donbass that now have Russian passports. Russia won't stand for any of it. No matter how much
the dumb Ukrainians or the lackey Poles or their US/nato masters huff and puff and
bellow.....
it is also not in the slightest German interests for a war to break out right in the
middle of Europe that might escalate into a nuclear confrontation, nor is it in their
national interest to lose the Nord Stream 2 project... at all.
I don't know about France's position in all this but either France or Germany could/would
exercise veto over any nato troops/intervention in the Ukraine.
time to return to the Minsk agreements. in spite of the incredible stupidity of the US
foreign policy Establishment and those jackass war-mongers Blinken, Nuland and Austin et.
al.
Do you really expect the Amerikastani Empire's puppet Ukranazi coup regime to say "we will
attack"? Instead it will attack and then claim Russia attacked it. Just like Hitler's
Gleiwitz radio station false flag attack that started WWII.
Zelensky in Istanbul. Erdogan to refuse to recognize Crimea as Russian territory..
Saw a tweet today saying something along the lines of Russia preventing flights to Turkey
this summer for "Covid" reasons, read between the lines..
Time is in Russia's favor: let the Ukraine continue to serve as a financial black hole to
the IMF. Let the Western Ukrainians continue to emigrate en masse to Poland and then to the
rest of the EU and the UK. Russia has already received some 1 million Eastern Ukrainian;
those are probably the more well-educated, more productive Ukrainians, ...
Posted by: vk | Apr 11 2021 1:20 utc | 77
This is rather sketchily related to reality.
1. Ukraine is not a "black hole for the IMF". They got a smallish credit, and now they are
being denied extensions on rather preposterous grounds, and Ukraine is charged for the unused
credit line. Contrary to Nulands boasting, the West keeps Ukraine on a leash with a rather
skimpy budget.
2. There is no clear distinction between migration patterns. The one time I was in Russia,
the tourist guide on a one-day bus trip was from Rivne -- in Poland in years 1918-39. And as
Polish medical workers go to Spain etc., Ukrainian once fill the vacant positions, and they
may come from any place. Ditto with the "quality of workers". Poland has more of seasonal
jobs in picking crops (while Poles do it further West) than Russia, Russia perennially seeks
workers ready to accept extra pay in less than benign climes. The closest to truth is
scooping engineers and highly qualified workers from factories that before worked for Russian
market, including military, replaced with Russian factories and, when needed, Ukrainian
know-how. That is pretty much accomplished -- predominantly from the Eastern Ukraine. As a
result, the remaining workforce is so-so from east to west.
It's been made clear that a Ukrainian attack on the D & L republics would be met with
a direct Russian intervention into the conflict and likely would result in the loss of the
whole of the disputed oblasts to the separatist republics. Russia has no intention of
eliminating Ukraine or occupying Kyiv, but that kind of defeat in the east would spell the
end of what political stability remains in Ukraine and likely lead to a new Maidan against
Zelensky and possibly further secessions. That's the real downside of this for Russia.
Ukraine is threatening to immolate itself as a form of brinksmanship.
Failing that death wish, only if Moscow somehow agrees to stay out of the war does this
have the remotest possibility of achieving what the Kyiv government needs. Otherwise it will
not attack.
@ Lozion | Apr 11 2021 2:18 utc | 81 with the link about the Ukraine/Turkey meeting
today..thanks
Interesting position by Erdogan and I would think it would effect Turkey's purchase of
Russian defense equipment but who knows where the complexity balance resides in the ME.
Lots of tinder just waiting for a spark to point the blame at for world conflagration. I
will believe this situation is cooling when I read about the US ships turning around and not
going into the Black Sea.
Erdoğan has several goals in Ukraine. Show Russia that he is strong and important for
Russia as he has influence on Ukraine. Show the USA that he is an active participant of NATo.
Sell his military drones to whoever wants them as well as other turkish products.
He appears as a king maker and gets business and approval from russia,the EU and the Usa to
avoid a war. A very successful move needed to rehabilitate Erdoğan seriously in trouble
with both the usa and the EU...
The western press is portraying the events of the past few weeks as representing an
unmotivated unilateral Russian troop buildup.
Canada's Globe and Mail yet again deliberately deceives its readers with omission-plagued
reporting which the author must know is wrong. This includes describing the Minsk agreements
as "the Kremlin's version of how to make peace" which are being utilized in an "enforcement
operation" featuring a "coercive use of force" meant to "induce Kyiv, Berlin and Paris" to
accept "Moscow's terms." Awful reporting by any objective measure.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-ukrainian-commander-sees-parallels-with-2014-as-russian-military-build/
Meanwhile, a Heritage Foundation flunky describes "spontaneous" Russian deployments
designed to "keep Ukraine out of organizations such as the EU or NATO".
Russia should be opposed because: "Modern Ukraine represents the idea in Europe that each
country has the sovereign ability to determine its own path, to decide with whom it has
relations, and how and by whom it is governed." https://www.arabnews.com/node/1840341
Both reporters make the same observation in opening paragraphs, supporting the notion that
these pieces are derived from a distributed script or collection of talking points:
1) "For weeks, Russian social media accounts have been flooded with videos showing long
convoys of tanks, troop trucks and artillery pieces "
2) "Dozens of videos in social media posts show hundreds of Russian tanks and armored
vehicles pouring into the region."
I have a feeling, it's only a feeling right now, that the looted black hole that's
Ukranazistan after 7 years of "freedom " is such a drain that the EUNATO gangsters behind the
Maidan would love to palm the ruins off to Russia. "Here, you broke it, you own it."
"
MOSCOW, April 11 (Xinhua) -- Russia does not seek a war with Ukraine but is concerned for the
Russian-speaking population in the country's eastern Donbass region, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry
Peskov said Sunday.
"No one is going to move towards a war, and no one at all accepts any possibility of such
a war," Peskov told a Russian TV program.
"Russia has never been a party to this conflict (between Kiev and insurgents in Donbass).
But Russia has always said that it will not remain indifferent to the fate of Russian
speakers who live in the southeast of Ukraine," he added.
According to the spokesman, Kiev refuses to fulfill its responsibilities under the Minsk
agreements on a Donbass settlement, with government forces intensifying "provocative actions"
in the region.
Russia, Germany and France are "bewildered" by Kiev's recent claims that the Minsk
agreements are useless, Peskov said, adding that there are no alternatives to the pacts for a
peaceful settlement of the conflict.
Political advisers of the Russian, German, French and Ukrainian leaders are working
towards holding a summit on eastern Ukraine, he said.
"
but I do see this situation more as having put the Maidan-coalition on the back-foot and
having to disentangle themselves, rather than a carefully pre-planned and coordinated
operation.
Thank you and I humourously appreciated your allusions to the asylum that has captured
Ukraine. The Maidan Murder Coalition has discovered its karma that was always lying in wait.
These villainous rsoles will seriously collapse under the weight of it all, particularly the
sniper trick shooters on the Maidan crowds.
I loved this line: "Everyone can recall a wide-spread (spread most likely by some overly
zealous, but not very literate, Russian "patriots") rumor about DDG-75 USS Donald Cook having
her electronics "burned" by a couple of intrepid Russian Su-24s in April of 2014, who
allegedly forced this American ship to fast return to Constanta, where, allegedly some of her
crew expressed a desire to abandon the ship. NYT and other US media, not without
justification, called those rumors to be Russian "propaganda". They have a point."
Which seems as good a moment as any to plug my new product (!!). Since that picture of
Col. Brittany visiting Donbass in uniform of 72th mechanized division with a prominent skull
badge reminded me so of the sketch 'Are we the Baddies' it is time to market my new velcro
badges with rainbows and BLM logos. Stick them anywhere to show you're part of the right
camp! If you shoulder badges may offend leftist softies, just stick these badges on top of
them for the perfect photo op! HTS already ordered a large batch. Now 20% off and buy two get
one free!
Turkey wants to build on its successes in Nagorno Karabach to sell its weapon systems to
Ukraine. Whether they also explicitly wish the conflict to explode is less clear.
Erdogan needs money, cash. The same seems to be true of most if not all Western
politicians. But some, like Erdogan and Bibi, need lots of money.
Putin on the other hand, does not need cash. He has a healthy fiat currency at his
disposal and sells a lot of food, oil, lumber, weapons etc. internationally.
I don't think Ukraine is going to be a good source of cash for Erdogan, or Bibi. They need
a lot of cash too.
So there is a massive build-up on both sides in Ukraine? ( The following comment was
provoked by info from a tweet that the Ukrainians have "found" a secret plan by the Kremlin
for a union with Donbas .. unconfirmed )
What if......?
... The Russians and the Dondbas/Luhansk actually DO declare a union with Russia? There is no
"need" for the Russians to physically "invade" the area. They can just sit there and wait for
the Ukrainians to do something. Then IF Zelensky decides, it is he who has to "start"
the conflict. As a plan it is the perfect reversal of the usual Russian "aggression".
Zelensky's bluff called?
A "union" is just another way of saying "it is ours EVEN IF the title is nominally someone
elses, stuff you".
The massive forces on the "frontlines" are there to remind the Ukes and their backers what
"might" happen, IF they "invade" Donbas/Luhansk. What can they do about it? Make rude noises
in the background?
The US, Israel and Turkey are all examples of one country simply "taking over" parts of
another country - without any legality whatsoever. US in NE Syria, Turkey with it's advance
of 32km all along a new frontline, with a wall between itself and Syria. Israel with the
Golan. None of them have the slightest legal reason to be there. (Chinese claim the
Spratleys, which is a legal fig-leaf).
Lateral thinking by Putin? Would he even need a legal fig-leaf?
It is an interesting idea, and I would not want to say it will not happen, but it seems
un-Putin-like to me based on past performance. He's been very comfortable with frozen
conflicts in the past. And I think he probably still wants Ukraine as a buffer, friendly but
not Russia, and to keep it whole minus Crimea.
This way he would still "keep" Ukraine on a tether, and avoid being accused of
aggression.
OK, it may go that way but the silence (from Putin) and the refusal of the Russians to
give more than vague reasons for their actions, does mean that the west's MSM have nothing to
froth at the mouth about- Let Zelensky stew in his own juice.
As well as the regular Army and volunteers, He is going to end up with seven thousand
ex-jihadists employees, multiple "mercenaries" from the US and the other parts of the world,
orders for Drones, arms etc. BUT he is losing $3 billion revenue from gas (the transit of
which has been "slowing down") since the 1st April. I don't know what he has contracted to
supply to those futher along the pipeline. Plus the debts to the WB and IMF.
So how long can he keep up the expense of having a standing army of 105'000 or more at the
ready?
The Russians can wait them out. If they just don't "talk" or give any PR leeway to the
west, then with the attention span of the goldfish in the EU and US citizens, it will drop
once again from view. (20 seconds for a goldfish otherwise they would get bored going round
and round in a bowl ?)
Diesen in his book, Russia's Geoeconomic Strategy for a Greater Eurasia , provides
the rationale for the Outlaw US Empire's actions in Ukraine, that are actually aimed at NATO
members, which it fears will be enticed by Russia and fracture the alliance:
"This susceptibility to outside sabotage of regional unity [NATO] can be mitigated by
centralizing power by, for example, instigating more overt military tensions to strengthen
alliance unity." [Pg. 22]
This also serves to provide additional energy to the Russophobic Narrative and the
unfounded rationale for anti-Russian sanctions. The Empire must at all costs continue NATO's
viability for that ensures the Empire's geoeconomic and geopolitical control of the EU. The
same is true in East Asia where the anti-China narrative must be continued to keep Japan and
South Korea under the Empire's thumb, although South Korea is slowly slipping away.
Time is in Russia's favor: let the Ukraine continue to serve as a financial black hole to
the IMF. Let the Western Ukrainians continue to emigrate en masse to Poland and then to the
rest of the EU and the UK. Russia has already received some 1 million Eastern Ukrainian;
those are probably the more well-educated, more productive Ukrainians, ...
Posted by: vk | Apr 11 2021 1:20 utc | 77
This is rather sketchily related to reality.
1. Ukraine is not a "black hole for the IMF". They got a smallish credit, and now they are
being denied extensions on rather preposterous grounds, and Ukraine is charged for the unused
credit line. Contrary to Nulands boasting, the West keeps Ukraine on a leash with a rather
skimpy budget.
2. There is no clear distinction between migration patterns. The one time I was in Russia,
the tourist guide on a one-day bus trip was from Rivne -- in Poland in years 1918-39. And as
Polish medical workers go to Spain etc., Ukrainian once fill the vacant positions, and they
may come from any place. Ditto with the "quality of workers". Poland has more of seasonal
jobs in picking crops (while Poles do it further West) than Russia, Russia perennially seeks
workers ready to accept extra pay in less than benign climes. The closest to truth is
scooping engineers and highly qualified workers from factories that before worked for Russian
market, including military, replaced with Russian factories and, when needed, Ukrainian
know-how. That is pretty much accomplished -- predominantly from the Eastern Ukraine. As a
result, the remaining workforce is so-so from east to west.
Interesting interview. Apparently, Yuri Andropov had a contingency plan on the event of
the disintegration of the USSR - and yes, it included the partition of the Ukraine into two
("east bank Ukraine" and "west bank Ukraine" - probably West of the Dnieper, East of the
Dnieper). It's in Russian, so maybe inconsistencies with automatic translation may exist:
The interview is with Russian neoliberal banker (of the circle of Yeltsin and Gaidar, St.
Petersburg intelligentsia) Viktor Loshak, from "Alfa-Bank group" (machine translation). He
was a working under Shatalin in the 1980s, so he's allegedly an eye witness (primary source)
of the alleged plans.
He also claims that the St. Petersburg neoliberals never intended to end the Union, and
that what really happened in the 1990s wasn't intended. Smells like revisionism to me, but
ok, the St. Petersburg circle was never known for their intellectual prowess, so it's
possible.
--//--
@ Posted by: Mao Cheng Ji | Apr 10 2021 21:07 utc | 51
It has in the sense that the Ukraine wants to restore its entire territory, not just some
part of it. There is no scenario where, it being able to reconquer LPR-DPR, it would leave
Crimea with Russia.
High profile attorney means possible troubles for Dominion and its lobbyists. such layers ten
not leave a single stone unturned, which is not in Dominion best interest. Emails will definitely
be subpoenaed and judging from the behaviour of one Dominion executive they were not too
careful.
I kel the joke "Are their lawyers also going to argue that no reasonable person would believe
Fox news?"
Fox News has hired two high-profile defense attorneys to combat a $1.6 billion lawsuit filed
against it by voting technology company Dominion.
The media outlet disclosed in a court filing that it had Charles Babcock and Scott Keller
for its defense. Fox News confirmed the hirings to The Hill.
... ... ...
Fox News Media told The Hill after Dominion filed its suit that it is "proud of our 2020
election coverage, which stands in the highest tradition of American journalism, and will
vigorously defend against this baseless lawsuit in court."
And yet discovery will be very interesting, and Fox News is now pitted against Dominion,
and their best way to defend themselves is to show that the criticisms were legitimate...
Fox can now subpoena anything relevant from Dominion, and Dominion has to comply or be
criminally prosecuted...
There is not much to discover with Dominion. It mainly functions like a windows 10
computer. so it is hackable. It is very easy to install fraudulent software on these
machines
See Harryi Hursti KILL CHAIN: THE CYBERWAR ON AMERICA'S ELECTIONS and look at his
affidavit See "Investigators for Attorney DePernoReportedly Discover Modem Chips Embedded in
Michigan Voting System Computer Motherboards" via today on theGatewayPundit
When testifying before the MI legislature, the Dominion CEO recommended that a full
forensic audit be ordered if voters suspect that these machines were connected to the
internet.
On Dec 1 election officials deleted the electronic voting data in violation of state
la
Sidney Powell lit a fuse. She woke the Republicans and others who want election integrity,
so the Democrats won't be able to steal any more. At least not with the same tactics
Lou Dobbs might have gotten confused once. I believe he said that an affidavit that
criticized Smartmatic had instead criticized Dominion. However, there are so many problems
with Dominion, I would consider it to be an immaterial mistake. After all these machines
appear to be unusable:
[Vote counting machines] "presents serious system security vulnerability and
operational issues that may place plaintiffs and other voters at risk of
deprivation of their fundamental right to cast an effective vote that is
accurately counted," U.S. District Judge Amy Totenberg wrote in a Oct 2020
Electionic vote counting machines were banned in France, Ireland and the in
the Netherlands via Gateway Pundit because they were unreliable.
The Gateway pundit could be sued if they make false statements.
via Twitter:
Elections Canada @ElectionsCan_E
· Nov 16
Elections Canada does not use Dominion Voting Systems. We use paper ballots counted by
hand in front of scrutineers and have never used voting machines or electronic tabulators to
count votes in our
100-year history. #CdnPoli
It is very easy to install fraudulent software on these machines See Harryi Hursti on
seeKILL CHAIN: THE CYBERWAR ON AMERICA'S
ELECTIONS and look at his affidavit
The actual claim is here (400+ pages):
www DOT documentcloud DOT org/documents/20527880-dominion-v-fox-news-complaint
These lawyers have their work cut out for them. As explained in the claim, Dominion
contacted Fox multiple times after the first accusations. They provided Fox with independent
assessments and other evidence that their systems were sound. Fox ignored it, never mentioned
this and continued presenting that Dominion systems were fraudulent (and stated that as a
fact, not as an opinion).
Once again, FOX News will likely claim that they are an entertainment network, not a
news agency ... and therefore they should not be expected to propagate facts on their
broadcasts.
Dominion fights as its image was damaged and it has deep pockets. But how valid are their
claim is for the court to decide. In no way they are as clean as they pretend. Their connection
Dem party operatives is probably provable beyond reasonable doubt. The whole story with Dominion
replacing Diebold on this business is murky to the extreme.
Roger Parloff · Contributor Tue, April
13, 2021, 5:06 AM · 22 min read
... "Instantly," said Steven
Bellovin , a professor of computer science at Columbia University with almost 40 years of
experience in computer networking and security. That's how long it took him to realize, he said
in an interview, that a certain purported spreadsheet that I showed him was "not just fake, but
a badly generated fake by someone who didn't know what they were doing."
The spreadsheet, together with an animated film that was said to illustrate its data, formed
the crux of a nearly two-hour "docu-movie," called "Absolute Proof," which aired at least 13
times last February on the One America News Network. The movie, presented in a news magazine
format, was hosted, co-produced, and relentlessly flacked by Mike Lindell, the irrepressible
CEO of MyPillow, Inc. It purported to furnish absolute proof that the 2020 presidential
election was stolen from then-President Donald Trump in an international cyberattack exploiting
vulnerabilities in voting-machine software that had been intentionally designed to rig
elections.
Dominion Voting Systems, which makes voting technology, filed a $1.3 billion defamation suit
against Lindell and his company in late February -- the third of four massive cases it has
filed since the election -- in part because of "Absolute Proof," which referenced Dominion more
than 40 times. (An in-depth analysis of Dominion's suits over bogus election-fraud claims, as
well as one brought by a rival voting-device company, Smartmatic, is provided in an earlier
story I wrote
here .)
I have just finished reading a couple of weighty tomes with similar themes: Dark Money by Jane
Mayer is about how some nominally right-wing libertarian sociopaths, (i.e. the Kochs and their
coterie) seek to control American politics through various 'charitable' think tanks and stealth
infiltration of top ranked universities; and
The Age of Surveillance Capitalism by Shoshana Zuboff, which is about how some nominally
left-wing(ish) libertarian whiz kid sociopaths seek to control the whole world through social
media.
My main take away is that libertarian ideology is just shorthand for narcissistic
entitlement and psychopathic greed.
...Some Republicans the past few years have talked of breaking from the two-party system and
starting a third. But that's not the way to go. Better to strengthen the system that for more
than a century and a half has seen us through a lot of mess. In its rough way the two-party
system, even without meaning to, functions as a unifying force: At the end of the day, for all
our differences and arguments, you have to decide if you were a constituency of Team A or Team
B. The parties, in their rough and inadequate way, had to be alive to your interests. Things
proceeded with a sense, an air, of majority rule. With a third party you can win the presidency
with 34%. That won't help national unity. And this being America, once we have a third party
we'll have a fourth and a fifth, and everything will be chaos, with a loss of any feeling of
general consensus.
Two parties are better for the country, and better for the Democrats. A strong Republican
party keeps them on their toes. As Oscar Hammerstein once said, liberals need conservatives to
hold them back and conservatives need liberals to pull them forward. One side should stop the
other when it goes too far, or boost it when it fails to move. Hammerstein was a cockeyed
optimist, but this isn't a bad time for that.
... ... ...
...I left the Republican Party at some point in the 2000s. I didn't like a lot of what I was
seeing. I began to say, honestly, that I was a political conservative but not a Republican.
Readers could see it in my work, and I heard from them a lot. I reregistered to vote in a
Republican primary in New York City, and have kept it that way, maybe for reasons of
orneriness.
But I've done a lot of mourning over it the past 15 years, shed literal tears over the GOP.
There were a lot of break points. Iraq was one: If that wasn't the country club at work, what
was? People to whom nothing much bad had ever happened, so they expected good fortune to follow
their decisions. Immigration was another, with the elite decision makers of the party not
caring at all how the unprotected see and experience life. It was a total detachment from their
concerns accompanied by a claim of higher compassion. Sarah Palin was another. I felt her
choice as a vice presidential candidate degraded a good insight, that an ability to do the show
business of politics is important -- FDR, JFK and Reagan knew that -- but you can't let
politics degrade into only showbiz; you need the ability to think seriously about
issues. It is wrong to reduce politics to a subset of entertainment. There were more.
Like thumb_up Reply reply Share link Report
flag
P
Patrick Jan SUBSCRIBER 12 minutes ago
Conservatives dominate the state governments and federal judiciary, and Republicans hold 50%
of the Senate and 49% of the House. Despite his many flaws, Trump lost the presidential
election by a mere 43,000 votes spread across 3 states. The GOP is hardly "shattered". On the
contrary, the country hasn't been this evenly divided in a long time.
Trump's populist conservative platform and fighting energy have made net gains for the
GOP. Trump's checkered personal life and lack of self-discipline have had the opposite
effect. So let's find a leader who maintains the Trump platform without the Trump
self-sabotage. How about Ron DeSantis?
Joan Lardin SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago
My late father used to say:
"oh what tangled webs we weave when first we practice to deceive."
All Republicans have to do to rehabilitate themselves and people's faith in
their party is speak truth about the Big Lie.
The truth will set them free.
But they can't or won't do it. They are held in the thrall of a six time bankrupt, lying
NY City conman. They are consummate cowards and panderers.
Jesse G SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago
The "Big Lie" is being perpetrated by the Biden Administration and Democrats right in front
of your face. Lying about the border, lying about jobs, lying about infrastructure, lying
about voting laws. Everything's a lie. I'm curious what your father would think about this
new level of deception.
Gregory Caswell SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago
Money, Media Hacks and Socialist Union Educators have succeeded, over the years, and more
completely recently, to brainwash our youth, and our ever more naive, less thoughtful, more
fearful, overly occupied, and wee witted population, into believing they would far better
off, under a Socialist Dictatorship than a Democratic Republic! I do believe that will change
over the next four years, when the new 'woke" will have thoughtfully awakened from the
nightmare that is growing daily, through lies and disinformation from our Left-Wing Pelosian
Politician's and the Administration, bolstered by our Majority Media Outlet Hacks, each and
every day! We are, and appear to be to other Nations, quite naive in our Foreign affairs! We
have more illegals gaining entrance and more citizen jobless than ever, and the Government
handouts will of necessity cease, with many opportunities having failed, and employment and
pay less than before! They are greasing the slope, and making it much steeper!
The column is extremely week and fragments are republished here for the sole purpose to
critique/
I think Dean Baker is very superficial here. Dominion is a corporation business model of
which is based on lobbying Congress and states. It is definitely closely connected to the
Democratic Party apparatchiks. This is a very questionable model. So now it tried to present
being White Knight defending itself again absurd claims like Hugo Chaves claim. This does not
change the nature of their business. In reality this is two dirty persons struggling in a mud
peat.
Also the key question remains unanswered: are Dominion machines do any good to the USA voting
system? If yes, then defending itself makes some positive sense. If not, why bother?
...Hugo Chavez, the former president of Venezuela who has been dead for eight years, figures
prominently in many of the stories. Nonetheless, many Fox News viewers believe them.
For a voting machine manufacturer, the claim that your machines are rigged is pretty much a
textbook definition of a damaging statement. Therefore, Dominion should have a pretty solid
case.
Sullivan doesn't dispute any of this, instead, she points out that libel or defamation suits
can also be used against news outlets doing serious reporting. She highlights the case of
Reveal, a nonprofit news outfit that is dedicated to investigative reporting. Reveal was nearly
forced out of business due to the cost of defending itself against a charity that it exposed as
being run by a cult. Sullivan's takeaway is that defamation lawsuits can be used as a weapon
against legitimate news organizations doing serious reporting.
Sullivan is right on this point, but wrong in understanding the implications. Every
civil course of action can be abused by those with money to harm people without substantial
resources. There are tens of thousands of frivolous tort cases filed every year, but would
anyone argue that we should deny people the right to sue a contractor that mistakenly sets
their customer's house on fire? The same applies to suits for breach of contract. If I pay
someone $10,000 in advance to paint my house and they don't do it, should I not be able to sue
to get my money back?
... ... ...
The reality is that our legal system can be abused by the powerful to harm those with
less power. That is the result of the enormous disparities of income and power in this country,
and the inadequate shields against abuse in the legal system...
By
Jeff Horwitz
and
Keach Hagey
Updated April 11, 2021 11:41 am ET
SAVE
PRINT
TEXT
Listen to this article
6 minutes
00:00 / 05:50
1x
Google for years operated a secret program that used data from past bids in the company's digital advertising exchange to
allegedly give its own ad-buying system an advantage over competitors, according to court documents filed in a Texas antitrust
lawsuit.
The program, known as "Project Bernanke," wasn't disclosed to publishers who sold ads through Google's ad-buying systems. It
generated hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue for the company annually, the documents show. In its lawsuit, Texas alleges
that the project gave Google, a unit of
Alphabet
Inc.,
GOOG
0.90%
an
unfair competitive advantage over rivals.
Google's Ad Machine
Online ads are typically sold in auctions that happen in an instant, when a user's webpage is loading. Google
dominates at virtually every step of the process. In an antitrust lawsuit, Texas alleges that Google's secret
"Project Bernanke" allowed the company to use knowledge it gained running its ad exchange to unfairly compete against
rivals. Here's how the digital advertising machine works:
THE SELL SIDE: PUBLISHERS
AD SPACE
FOR SALE
When a
user
visits
a large online
publisher's
website
or app, the publisher uses an
ad
server
to sell ad space on its pages.
The publisher also gives the exchange information about the reader -- their age, income, browsing history and
interests, for example.
In this example, the publisher uses Google's DoubleClick for Publishers, the leading ad-serving tool.
The tool puts the publisher's ad space up for sale on
exchanges
,
marketplaces where transactions happen in real-time between sellers (
publishers
)
and buyers (
advertisers
).
REAL-TIME
AUCTION HOUSES
Google has the largest such marketplace, the DoubleClick Ad Exchange, or AdX.
THE BUY SIDE: ADVERTISERS
An advertiser, representing its clients' products, uses sophisticated buying tools to purchase ads.
In this example, an advertiser uses Google's buying tool, DV360, the industry leader.
The advertiser can specify the types of audiences it wants to target -- such as location, gender or age of
user -- and the price of their offer.
To get its ad in front of the user, the advertiser places bids in the auction marketplace -- the highest bidder
wins.
Once a match is made on the exchange, an ad pops up on users' screens.
The documents filed this week were part of Google's initial response to
the
Texas-led antitrust lawsuit
, which was filed in December and accused the search company of running a digital-ad monopoly
that harmed both ad-industry competitors and publishers. This week's filing, viewed by The Wall Street Journal, wasn't
properly redacted when uploaded to the court's public docket. A federal judge let Google refile it under seal.
Some of the unredacted contents of the document were earlier disclosed by MLex, an antitrust-focused news outlet.
The document sheds further light on the state's case against Google, along with the search company's defense.
Much of the lawsuit involves the interplay of Google's roles as both the operator of a major ad exchange -- which Google likens
to the New York Stock Exchange in marketing documents -- and a representative of buyers and sellers on the exchange. Google also
acts as an ad buyer in its own right, selling ads on its own properties such as search and YouTube through these same systems.
Texas alleges that Google used its access to data from publishers' ad servers -- where more than 90% of large publishers use
Google to sell their digital ad space -- to guide advertisers toward the price they would have to bid to secure an ad placement.
Google's use of bidding information, Texas alleges, amounted to insider trading in digital-ad markets. Because Google had
exclusive information about what other ad buyers were willing to pay, the state says, it could unfairly compete against rival
ad-buying tools and pay publishers less on
its
winning bids for ad inventory
.
The unredacted documents show that Texas claims Project Bernanke is a critical part of that effort.
How tech giants are both cooperating while competing in hardware, software and technology services
Google acknowledged the existence of Project Bernanke in its response and said in the filing that "the details of Project
Bernanke's operations are not disclosed to publishers."
Google denied in the documents that there was anything inappropriate about using the exclusive information it possessed to
inform bids, calling it "comparable to data maintained by other buying tools."
Peter Schottenfels, a Google spokesman, said the complaint "misrepresents many aspects of our ad tech business. We look
forward to making our case in court." He referred the Journal to an analysis conducted by a U.K. regulator that concluded that
Google didn't appear to have had an advantage.
The Texas attorney general's office didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
Google's outsize role in the digital-ad market is both controversial and at times murky.
In some instances, "we're on both the buy side and the sell side," Google Chief Economist Hal Varian said at a 2019 antitrust
conference held by the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. Asked how the company managed those roles, Mr. Varian
said the topic was "too detailed for the audience, and me."
The Jewish Anti-defamation league is after Tucker Carlson. That's as bad as it gets. They
have more money than God.
Anti-Defamation League chief Jonathan Greenblatt "Tucker must go"...."white supremacist
tenet that the white race is in danger by a rising tide of non-whites" that is "anti-Semitic,
racist and toxic."
"" Lord, if it be your will, harden my heart. Stop me from striving to see the best in
people. Stop me from being hopeful that White people can do and be better."
I wonder if this sick woman has any idea, how many good people trapped in the violence of
hoods...could feel exactly the same way about blacks?
Justifiably...
Liesel 24 minutes ago
Dear God, please help me to stop spending money on Amazon and doing Google searches...
Liesel 27 minutes ago (Edited)
If we refuse to spend money at all these businesses that are "woke", there would literally
be no place left to shop. It's really getting that bad. However, please remember the powers
that be want people divided and hating each other. In their eyes, people who are united are
the most dangerous them.
Darth-Budice 34 minutes ago
Been 7 years since I stepped foot into a Target.
If they think 13% of the population + the soy-infused can support them...
I have a different take on this. The US should move to take back Cuba. Let Russia have
Ukraine, we take back Cuba. After Cuba take back Venezuela. Then Russia and China have no
ports in the Americas. Much bigger win for the US.
permanent victim 1 hour ago
Take back?
libfrog88 56 minutes ago
That is the usual word for Americans for stealing.
NATO commissars chase Ukrainian conscripts into RU artillery and machinegun fire until
they lose control over their units, which immediately flee the battlefield (as usual).
If V.V. Putin feels merciful, there's no Buratino rocket barrages on troop concentration
points, as happened during Ilovaisk debacle.
Now, hopefully NATO will puff up and use their vaunted Israeli drones during the attack,
so RU can study the remains.
You never, ever attack entrenched, prepared and boresighted Russians in tank country, without
air superiority, because if you do you get Kursk.
In the best case.
In worst, and most probable case, NATO will get another Saur Mogila disaster.
@Zarathustra urriculum. The Russians must stop protecting the Jews who control the
narrative everywhere. Jews must no longer control more than 10% of the media. They are only
1-2% of the population.
Like the Jews, Galician Ukrainians are always victims. What they did to the Poles during
the German occupation is forgotten.
The zionists are in control in the Ukraine and if they start a war with Russia the Ukraine
is going to be destroyed, Russia has warned Ukraine over and over but being the typical
zionists that they are, they will accept nothing but destruction and bloodshed as long as it
is someone elses blood and destruction.
The zionists have destroyed Iraq and Syria and Libya and Yemen and America.
@alwayswrite ous Regions/Republics had the legal right to secede from the given SSR they
were attached to. Furthermore, once USSR dissolved, any legal basis for a given (former) SSR
to have sway on the given Autonomous Soviet Republic ended.
@Miro23 Germans are surely going to become tired of all this CIA/Neo-con BS.
Merkel and Macron know just what the US is playing at. If the Ukraine does get the deserved
thrashing, that it is literally begging for, then of course there will be German and French
knee jerk condemnations along with the ritual imposition of token sanctions. However this
dangerous episode, will likely harden the resolve of both countries to escape the grip of the
flailing hegemon, which is now in its death throes. So perhaps in the slightly longer term, the
whole episode will backfire on the US and big time at that.
Russia might feel that war in Ukraine is inevitable and perhaps it would be better now,
rather than later.
@Levtraro ganovich, henchman to Stalin, but with an agenda of his own, had his troops and
secret-police agents seize essentially ALL the food stocks from perhaps 2 million peasant
families, resulting in death by starvation for multi-millions.
Thirdly, the heaviest battles in the Second World War were mostly fought in Ukraine. Again,
the death totals of the civilian population were huge. The land was ravaged. Essentially the
entire population were deeply traumatized.
Consequently one should not wonder that to the average Russian Ukrainians appear to be dazed
and dumbed-down. So next time you see your Russian friends, kindly remind them that their
brethren to the south and west should be regarded and treated with considerable compassion.
Good comment. Basically what I have been saying since Maidan. I understand why it has not
happened but the time has definitely come. I think the demarcation would be Odessa, Kherson,
Mykolaev and then north along the Dnipro including Khortiskia and up to East Sumy. I know it
sounds warmongerish but I hope this happens. Get this shit over with. There is so much
happening in this country that discriminates against ethnic Russians more each day.
No, it isn't; it's worse. The Ukrainian army suffers huge non-combat losses every day:
accidents from drinking or narcotics, desertion, suicides. Their commanders are incompetent and
super-dumb as well as first-rate scumbags.
They well remember the Russian reconquest after the revolution and Holodomor.
That they do not remember, for that never happened, at least, not as described. What they do
remember, however, are the caldrons in 2014-2015 and their horrendous losses.
"They well remember the Russian reconquest after the revolution and Holodomor. Ukraine will
not be easily swallowed again."
Ummmmm . it would appear that the grandchildren of the architects of the Holodomor are the
ones currently in power in Ukraine. Pretty amazing level of cucking and submission if you ask
me.
@Levtraro vernment of Ukraine and that the current regime is nothing more than a puppet
state which does NOT represent the best interests of the Ukrainian people and particularly of
those particularly Russian speaking folks in Crimea and the Donbass region.
The illegitimate regime in Kiev is almost entirely Khazarian Talmudist dominated and in
cahoots with the fascistic Uniates in Galicia. That group should be entirely divorced from any
future Ukrainian state as their history has a long involvement with Western Roman Catholic
cultures and consequently is an alien entity within the body politick of Ukraine, Belarus or
Russia. Let them go their own way and not infect their neighbors to the south and east with
their culturally indigestible attitudes.
Turkey Confirms 2 US Warships To Enter Black Sea As Ukraine Posturing Grows
BY TYLER DURDEN
FRIDAY, APR 09, 2021 - 10:29 AM
Turkey's foreign ministry on Friday confirmed
that it's granted permission for US warships to use the Bosporus and Dardanelles straits to enter the Black Sea at a moment
tensions with Russia over Ukraine are spiraling higher with tit-for-tat threats. Given it revealed the initial notification
was two weeks ago, a pair of American warships are
expected imminently to enter the
Black Sea
.
The foreign ministry
said
in a statement
while referencing the treaty that regulates passage through the straits: "A notice was sent to us 15 days
ago via diplomatic channels that two U.S. warships would pass to the Black Sea in line with the Montreux Convention.
The
ships will remain in the Black Sea until May 4.
"
Typically the US gives 14-days notice prior
to sending warships into the Black Sea, according to the long established treaty with Turkey regarding use of the Bosporus to
enter the waters.
And Reuters notes the significance of the
timing
as follows
: "The United States has informed Turkey that two of its warships will pass through Turkish straits to be
deployed in the Black Sea until May 4, Ankara said on Friday, as Russia has bulked up its military forces on Ukraine's eastern
border."
Late Thursday an unnamed US defense official
had told CNN the warships would be deployed
"in the next few weeks in
a
show of support for Ukraine
,"
and further the deployment would "send a specific message to Moscow that the US is
closely watching," according to the
report
.
Importantly, all of this comes just days
after Ukraine's president Volodymyr Zelensky personally urged NATO to
immediately
expand its Black Sea presence.
He had said in a phone call with NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg,
"Such
a permanent presence
should be a
powerful
deterrent to Russia
, which continues the large-scale militarization of the region and hinders merchant
shipping," the
president's
press service
indicated in a readout.
Zelensky had also traveled to the site of frontline renewed fighting in the Donbas region on Thursday in a show of support to
Ukrainian national forces who are clashing with Russia-backed separatists.
While American vessels have long operated in the Black Sea, even semi-regularly conducting drills there, this time the US
ships are being sent there
specifically as a "warning" to Moscow
.
But Russia's Defense Ministry on Thursday announced naval maneuvers of its own,
confirming
that it's
moving more than 10 navy vessels from the Caspian Sea to the Black Sea
in
order to conduct naval exercises.
With the rival naval build-up on the Kremlin and Ukraine's doorstep, and with the mutual amassing of troops on either side of
the border...
what could go wrong?
Bdubs
49 minutes ago
And Trump
was the bloodthirsty war monger?
Is there
ANYTHING the left disparages the right for that is not a psychological projection?
These f-ers
need therapy.
Misesmissesme
1 hour ago
(Edited)
Man, we're doing everything we can to turn Ukraine into Poland circa 1939.
Maybe we can find an Archduke to assassinate so we can turn the clock all the way back to 1914.
USAllDay
1 hour ago
remove
link
Joe
sent his kid to Ukraine to blow lines. He'll send yours to blow up.
GreatCaesar'sGhost
1 hour ago
No nato troops will ever set foot in Ukraine. They're trying to pressure Russia into doing something
so they can force the Germans to stop nordstream. The Ukrainians can't win here and they're being used.
Not good.
BeePee
1 hour ago
There
were NATO advisors in Ukraine. Even that should be stopped.
Selling arms to Ukraine, most likely will continue. That's what companies do.
GreatCaesar'sGhost
58 minutes ago
The
Ukrainians are being pushed to make a move against Donbass and even Crimea. It is a poor country buying
expensive weapons, doesn't end well.
I don't know what weed you're smoking but it has really scrambled your brains. The ability
to show up on the parade grounds and go around the world showing fancy overpriced toys does
not equate to fighting ability. The US hasn't faced a real army in a conventional war since
Vietnam. The US is great at fighting banana republics, but if facing a real military like
Russia (who believe me have all the drones that the US has and the ability to neutralize
those of the enemy) would run for their safe spaces and hide.
It is difficult to find a black cat in the empty dark room, but neoliberal MSM jump over
their head screaming Cat! Evil Russian cat!
Notable quotes:
"... Looking for something in wikipedia, I discover that in 1961, the first manned spaceflight was..."a propaganda victory". There's no hope! ..."
"... I think Russians have weaponized word 'weaponized' because presence in headlines represents most useful mechanism to map current extent of Mockingbird 2 operations. ..."
"... It was an interesting demonstration of the circularity of belief mechanisms at work when people adopted ideas like: "Putin did not really intervene in our elections, he was much more devious. He made us think he did intervene and that way caused us to undermine ourselves! That is how devilish he is and we were even more right than we thought about that!" ..."
"... It is beyond question that such a "system" is overly hysterical, to say the least ..."
With the US/UK press in full Russia hysteria mode, right now, it's time for a thread on
things the Anglo-American media has accused Moscow of "weaponising."
We shall start with Charlie Sheen.
Yes. Really. Not a joke.
Take a bow, @ak_mack & @ForeignPolicy
Bryan MacDonald's thread is a good opportunity to update our list of all the issues, ideas
and things Russia has weaponized.
Even while the list below now includes 111 entries - like robotic cockroaches, postmodernism
and 14.legged squids - it is likely far from being complete.
Some people, crazed extremists no doubt, might regard all that as a way of softening up
public opinion for conflict. Reading through the list, it seems more like the ravings of
paranoid schizophrenics then it does journalists.
This demonizing of Russia is an attempt to portray it as a threat: there is certainly a clash
of interests between Russia and the West. But the confrontation being pursued will not lead
to the conclusion NATO predicts. Failure to heed the warnings of history is leading us to the
nuclear apocalypse. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
Even for Reuters their center headline, photo and subtext are over the top.
They no longer make any effort to disguise political opinion as facts
(their sheeple readers won't catch on).
As of this writing the headline is: Half of Republicans believe false accounts of Capitol riot: Reuters/Ipsos poll
and the subtext is: Since the deadly Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, former President Donald Trump
and his Republican allies have pushed false and misleading accounts to downplay the event
that left five dead and scores of others wounded. His supporters appear to have
listened.
He tread water wearing a blissful smile as the organism approached him (14 armed
killer squid). Obviously the "vampire Squid" Goldman Sachs has been submersively trying to
disrupt Russia.
Why would the CIA be so interested in the ability of North Korea to modify weather? Most
probably because the CIA's efforts to pull off a repeat of the flooding in North Korea in
1994-1995 failed and they want to know why.
Aside: Research the CIA's "Operation Popeye" in 1967 Vietnam if you are doubtful of
how evil and crazy the CIA is.
Most likely the party involved in foiling the CIA's plot to flood North Korea again and
trigger another famine was China and not Russia. Not only does China have extensive
experience with cloud seeding, but they are in the proper location to accomplish the task.
Cloud seeding is how the Chinese provided clear weather over Beijing for the Olympics in
2008... they seeded air masses farther upwind to make it rain there and dry out the air
heading to Beijing. If the air heading towards North Korea (relatively consistent west to
east flow there) has already been seeded and much of the moisture in it already precipitated
out, then when the CIA's spook planes seed it nearer to the Korean peninsula it will be too
dry to squeeze much more rain out of. The CIA would be cockblocked and frustrated and they
will naturally want to know why their attempts at genocide failed.
Our Mission
At Collateral Global, we believe that there is an urgent need to study the consequences of
public health measures implemented in response to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, including the
second and third-order effects.
Through commitment to the enduring principles of scientific inquiry, we aim to provide
scholarship and research, building an evidence-based understanding of mitigation measures
that is both accessible and actionable.
How long until the above site is compromised or McCarthyism-smeared?
Maybe these count. I looked for variations of weaponize in title. These were stories I
remember reading and did quick search to retrieve something about them. Great list.
I am deeply troubled that you conveniently neglected to include another fearsome Russian
Super-Dooper Weapon: the children's cartoon Masha and the Bear .
It's obvious that Masha and the Bear is a nefarious Russian plot to steal the precious
bodily fluids of our children!
We must be constantly vigilant. The CIA, FBI, MI6, NSA, and Homeland Security must be
notified about the Masha Threat. YouTube must censor Masha. And blue check-marked Twitter
police must condemn anyone who watches Masha.
This one didn't have the word 'weaponize', close though: "opening a new front in its spy
battles".
accusing the Kremlin of opening a new front in its spy battles with the West amid the
worldwide competition to contain the pandemic.
...
American intelligence officials said the Russians were aiming to steal research to
develop their own vaccine more quickly, not to sabotage other countries' efforts. There was
likely little immediate damage to global public health, cybersecurity experts said.
Russia's weaponized Zersetzung
...
And although economic sanctions might hurt Russia's economy, they won't easily heal the
divisions that weaponized decomposition has deepened in America. Putin's assault on the
national soul is working.
The U.S. media is weaponizing ignorance.
The more one absorbs their reporting, the more the brain is reduced to mush.
I can only manage a few hundred works and I become irritated and disoriented.
My hat is off to people who can somehow look at that stuff and remain sane.
Or are they...hmmm...
A major mistake in interpreting the massive parallelism of all these claims is to assume a
form of central coordination.
In fact the parallellism is spontaneous once the target has a bad reputation. Centrally
organized propaganda can tune the reputation of the target but even that is not essential and
it can happen organically. Once the reputation is set however the process has its own
momentum. There is a bit more to it than merely the reputation of the target because the
positive reputation of those who attack the target also plays. In fact you have to work with
a large network of trust relations to get a good picture.
Glenn Greenwald recently linked to an article of Erik Weinstein on Russell Conjugation , how
the same events get an entirely different emotional content depending on the reporter. In the
long list of links above everyone is using the same spectacles for looking at events, but
also for filtering what is relevant , meaningful and worthy of attention.
This is why the NYTimes is still an interesting paper once you know how to read it. But few
people can use it that way.
The Russians, along with the Chinese, have apparently weaponized the protests of British
citizens against overreaching Police legislation.
"The disruption being caused through "Kill the Bill" protests in UK is an effort by the
Sino-Russian alliance to destroy trust and confidence in political and institutional systems,
in a bid to leave society demoralised and feeling powerless against events." https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/china-russia-use-social-media-fuel-protests-uk
div> Surely Harry and Megan must have been weaponized by that dreadful
Putin! Stands to reason. Doesn't it?
We need to keep in mind one thing: That which The West accuses Russia of, they are actually
committing themselves.
Nearly all of the 'weaponisations' that we are reading about above, The West is actually
DOING. The hypocracy is incredible. But we need to look at this hypocrisy, because in all
instances the propaganda is being directed at YOU! You / Us / Me in The West. We are the
target of this propaganda. In many instances it is MILITARY ORGANISTIONS that are targeting
civilians with lies and misinformation. WE are being attacked by military organisations.
I think enough is enough on The West. It's disgraceful that military organisations are
allowed to target civilians with BLATANT propaganda. It's time to fight back.
Howdy people. I think Russians have weaponized word 'weaponized' because presence in
headlines represents most useful mechanism to map current extent of Mockingbird 2
operations.
classical psychological projection by the weaponized narrative enablers of the worst Empire
in all human history, as we stand at 90 Seconds to Midnight on the very precipice of nuclear
war and ecological catastrophe, and the engine of the Armageddon Express starts to go off the
cliff....
I have two parakeets that I have been trying to weaponize for the better part of a month. But
it appears to be totally hopeless. If Mr. Putin happens to read this blog for some
weaponistic purpose, would you please offer me some of your invaluable advice? Please?
I think weaponized sheep is the winner, with incompetence a close second.
Jen, can you please tell me where one can watch the skating? Or perhaps, well we would call
them re-runs in the ancient history days - perhaps utoobs?
I see tantalizing hints on RT, but no real films.
The russian skaters (from what I saw last year) are truly amazing. Thanks.
If the system used by restaurants and cafes in HK is similar to what we have in Australia,
then they are required at least to provide a method by which their customers can be contacted
and advised if someone who has tested positive for COVID-19 has also visited the eateries
within 14 days of the customers having visited the establishments. That way those customers
can know if they need to isolate and limit their contacts with others.
The contact tracing is also supposed to help government authorities know how quickly the
disease is or is not spreading so they only have to lockdown certain neighbourhoods or areas
where there may be a cluster developing, instead of locking down an entire city or a state or
even a whole country.
Also you need to be careful reading Al Jazeera articles: Al Jazeera is definitely not a
fan of Russia or China.
"... And among those chafing at the government's response, like restaurant owners and their
customers, a form of grassroots resistance was forged.
Instead of asking their customers to scan the health department's QR code and transmit
their location, some owners have designed an alternative code that feeds into a Googleform
which will be erased every 31 days, the period for which businesses are required by
authorities to retain the data ..."
That action by the restaurant owners is not exactly grassroots resistance if the
authorities have already approved the Googleform and the erasures.
Around ten years ago, I called this "Dog Putin ate my homework syndrome". It is not only
propaganda against an economic, political and even soul competitor (last resort of real
Christianity is Russia), it is not even just a projection ("killer Putin", as Putin himself
explained). Its primary purpose is to tell you why you are living worse than 20 years ago,
why your children will live even worse than you now if they remain in this lost cause of
deeply corrupt and rotten so called countries. It is an excuse for everything that is wrong -
it is all because Putin and Xi weaponised it.
When I see such things in alt media, since I do not consume the swill from the main
sewerage media, I get that sinking feeling that I live in a wrong place, a place without a
future.
I do not care who the "authorities" denigrate, Russia, China, they are even to me. I only
wish they would do something to reduce the problems of our own societies instead of always
blaming someone else. Because as long as the rulers and their sewerage media sycophants keep
pointing fingers at Russia and China nothing will change for the better here where I am.
Any propaganda works if the people know they will never suffer the consequences of war.
The idea, all the way from Saddam Hussein, that we can influence the USA public to stop
their govt waging war on us, is misplaced.
I used to believe it too. I dont believe anymore. I dont believe the USA govt needs to
strain themselves to get the citizens behind them to put up blockades/sanctions or launch
cruise missiles.
Some still think this or that event will be used to "sanction russia", "attack iran"
etc.
(The "more sanctions coming" part is weird. As though Russia today prospers at the
pleasure of the West)
The only thing that stops an attack on Iran is hard cold realities of thousands of dead US
Marines and destitution at home once the oil terminals are blown up. Same vs Russia.
Still bloggers write stuff to try to convince the Anerican public.
Only thing that convinces any person/society is the consequences for actions.
But mark my words: West was beaten on 2020-01-08. Payment soon to Russia for going along
with the c19. Iran got some of its payment with that 25yr agreement.
It's still "One Country / Two Systems" in China / Hongkong as far as I can tell. If
Googleforms are not available in Hongkong, maybe you need to tell
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
"Because as long as the rulers and their sewerage media sycophants keep pointing fingers at
Russia and China nothing will change for the better here where I am."
Posted by: Kiza | Apr 6 2021 1:18 utc | 51
Absolutely Kiza, damn shame, but expect no change, and no disappointment will arise. The
new feudalism has arrived.
The take away ending quote
"
For the EU, the Chinese entry into global politics is more problematic. It was trying to
leverage its own 'strategic autonomy' by erecting European values as the gateway to inclusion
into its market and trade partnership. China effectively is telling the world to reject any
such hegemonic imposition of alien values and rights.
The EU is stranded in the midst. Unlike the U.S., it is precluded from printing the money
with which to resurrect its virus-blighted economy. It desperately needs trade and
investment. Its biggest trading partner, and its tech well-spring, however, has just told the
EU (as the U.S.), to give up on its moralising discourse. At the same time, Europe's
'security partner' has just demanded the opposite – that the EU strengthens it. What's
to be done? Sit back, and watch (with fingers crossed that no one does something extremely
stupid).
"
Trying to wade through the muck that passes as news today IS a fools errand.
Long time reader of MOA, followed Paveway long ago.
B, keep this site alive and let me know how to contribute.
It was an interesting demonstration of the circularity of belief mechanisms at work when
people adopted ideas like: "Putin did not really intervene in our elections, he was much more
devious. He made us think he did intervene and that way caused us to undermine ourselves!
That is how devilish he is and we were even more right than we thought about that!"
I recently read an article which stuck with me on a Flemish 'eminence grise' (Jan
Balliauw)on Russia which commented on
the European turnabout over the Sputnik vaccine(in dutch) : yes we misjudged the Russian
vaccine but it is the fault of the Russians and the bastards are cheering now! And he goes on
to the main theme by emphasizing the Russians can't be trusted.
It is beyond question that such a "system" is overly hysterical, to say the least
. Show me the proof that there is a need to cancel democracy and human rights for something
that does not affect 99.9% if anyone at all. And if you do, why not lock everybody in because
of traffic accidents, violent crime or actual diseases such as malaria, dengue fever or
whatever.
I question the motives for what is going on: that is to say: I do not accept that people's
health is the driving factor behind this. Show me the proof that what is claimed is actually
happening and if so also show me the proof that the intrusive technology is actually
meaningful. In my view this is conditioning the people to accept personal surveillance on a
level that goes far beyond 1984, and it is infinitely more scary than "covid".
How Russia Amerika+France+UK+++ weaponized "the Great Syrian Democratic
Revolution"
How much longer can people still insist that there is a Syrian revolution, when the most
powerful group is not only friendly to the West, but an "asset"?
In Australia, the minimum that restaurants, cafes, other dining establishments, other
private retail establishments and places where large numbers of people might gather can do is
provide a way in which customers and patrons can be notified that they may have come in
contact with someone who has COVID-19 or who has tested positive for COVID-19. But most of
these places cannot compel people to leave their contact details (usually mobile phone
numbers) with them.
In cases where places do compel people to leave their mobile phone details for the
purposes of contact tracing, people have the option of going somewhere else that does not
insist on their leaving their contact details behind.
The system used in Hong Kong dining places appears to be
similar to the system used in Australia: by law, these establishments must provide
methods by which people can be contacted if they become sites of infection. They either
encourage people to download a contact-tracing app or ask people to write their details down
on paper forms. Customers have the option also of not going out at all and eating at home,
which is difficult to do in a culture where dining out in public with friends and family is
expected and where most people live in small apartments so they prefer to entertain others by
taking them out to restaurants and cafes.
Some restaurants and cafes in HK have also refused to take people's contact details and
have opted to serve takeaway meals only.
Theoretically this system would reduce the need for blanket lockdowns of an entire city or
a larger administrative unit such as a state or province, or even country. In Sydney, the NSW
government used contact tracing to determine that a cluster of COVID-19 cases was limited
mainly to the northeast side of the metropolitan area and this part of Sydney was subjected
to lockdown. Traffic access to the area (population: about 250,000) was blocked by police.
The lockdown lasted about 21 days and included New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. During this
period people living in the affected area couldn't leave it but were allowed to leave their
homes for exercise, essential shopping and getting takeaway meals within the area.
The issue that Al Jazeera brings up is an issue of compulsion and creeping authoritarian
rule (based on stereotypes about China and the Chinese government) but it uses a poor example
to demonstrate what it wants its readers to believe. It turns out that the HK govt is not
forcing all dining establishments to use its contact-tracing app but is giving them a choice.
Al Jazeera should have done better research.
Show me the proof that there is a need to cancel democracy and human rights for
something that does not affect 99.9% ...
Jen is not advocating for canceling democracy and human rights. And the pandemic
affects us all. Everyone is capable of getting sick and passing it on to others.
Democracies have responded to the pandemic with measures that many people find onerous and
many lies have been spread by some of these people such as: 1)"masks don't work" (they do
work but they protect others, not the mask-wearer) ; 2) "only old people die" (even teens
have died); and 3) that the pandemic is a hoax (it's not just the flu!).
Your "... does not affect 99.9% if anyone at all" is just regurgitating
nonsense.
Many more-authoritarian countries have actually been more successful in fighting the
pandemic. They haven't had to have the long "lockdowns" (a misnomer that exaggerates) that
Western democracies have imposed. Among the things that they have done (as temporary
emergency measures) is: rigorous contact-tracing, and quarantining the sick and suspected
sick.
I would also note that the hypocrisy is astounding:
People that DEMAND a return to normalcy also argue against the actions that could have
returned us to normal much sooner than waiting for experimental vaccines;
Libertarians that don't complain much about laws like speed limits and the prohibition
against yelling "fire!" in a crowed theater are DEMANDING an end to pandemic measures that
curtail their liberty;
Republicans that are pushing for voting ID and accept a police state are DEMANDING that
the economy be "opened up".
I should add, for the benefit of readers that don't know me, that my criticism of those
who are critical of pandemic measures doesn't mean that I'm not skeptical of many things
about this pandemic such as:
USA/Empire desire to stoke hate for China;
Big Pharma - government ties;
mRNA tech which has been funded by US Mil for use in biowarfare;
the immense propaganda spawned by the the above and the sheeple's acceptance of
same.
The only thing that holds America or the "democratic" West together is an increasingly rabid
hatred of Russia and China.
The Western-controlled Free Press and its unhinged accusations against Russia is matched
by its equally unhinged torrent of Yellow Peril propaganda against China, as evidenced
below:
Simply put, the collective West--led by the America and the Anglosphere--resembles a
civilization of paranoid schizophrenics, whose delusional ravings will drive them towards
world war--total war.
Needless to say, things will not end well for them.
This guy is nothing but a f * c king crook and a gangster. They just paid a fine of a
BILLION dollars for manipulating the Gold Market. And they even give time for this shyster to
even speak?
jamesblazen62 10 hours ago remove link
Dimon is in greed's grasp and he can't escape. He's had 2 brushes with death (cancer and
emergency heart surgery). You'd think a billionaire with more money than he can ever need or
want has something better to do in his life than conniving for more money and playing big
corporate games of manipulation and deceit.
Evil-Edward-Hyde 50 minutes ago
J P Morgan is a crime Syndicate.
They constantly Break the Laws.
No Problem for Them,
They Just Pay The Fines.
Their secret is they make much much more money on the scam did they have to pay in
fines.
FiscalBatman 1 hour ago remove link
It's amazing how out of touch these guys are. They just don't get it. Dimon will be
swaying back and forth with the rest of them at this rate
The Competent Man 8 hours ago remove link
This is NOT a boom.
When was the last time houses went for above asking price, ever, with 20 million out of
work?
All of this 'boom' is nothing but asset inflation.
And also by the level of degeneration of the US neoliberal elite. Healthy elite would never
resort to "Wokism" in the attempt to crush populism and deflect anger directed on banksters, tech
moguls and politicians
Political populism, a common lament for Dimon, was also criticized.
" Americans know that something has gone terribly wrong, and they blame this country's
leadership: the elite, the powerful, the decision makers - in government, in business and in
civic society," he wrote.
"This is completely appropriate, for who else should take the blame?"
That fuels populism on the right and left, he said.
"But populism is not policy, and we cannot let it drive another round of poor planning and
bad leadership that will simply make our country's situation worse."
The lengthy letter touched on many perennial policy bugbears like the need for "proper
immigration policies" - ie making it easier for tech companies and others to hire skilled labor
from abroad - while the CEO also wrote that " affordable housing remains out of reach for too
many Americans."
At one point, Dimon offered a defense of the dollar's status as the world's reserve
currency, arguing that the Chinese yuan isn't "fully convertible" like its American
counterpart, and warned of the possibility of capital controls and prohibitions against assets
like gold and cyptocurrency.
But the CEO was very candid about China...
"China's leaders believe America is in decline... The Chinese see an America that is
losing ground in technology, infrastructure and education – a nation torn and crippled
. . . and a country unable to coordinate government policies (fiscal, monetary, industrial,
regulatory) in any coherent way to accomplish national goals."
"Unfortunately," Dimon writes, "there is a lot of truth to this."
Warning of the real risks of stagflation, the banker warned
"...the United States could be perceived as a place that is inhospitable to capitalism and
capitalists," and he advised readers to think about "currency diversification, country
diversification, and asset class diversification."
And
as SovereignMan's Simon Black notes , Dimon then lists goes on to provide a wide-ranging
laundry list of problems that have been building for years in the United States– "I'll
give some examples, but if I tried to address them all this letter would become a book."
Dimon cites "a litigation and regulatory system that is costly, crippling small
businesses with red tape and bureaucracy ".
" terrible infrastructure planning and investment"
"huge waste and inefficiency at both the federal and state levels"
a lack of "effective immigration policies"
"we fail to properly fund pension obligations "
" income equality has gotten worse"
"social safety nets [are] poorly designed"
" 30% of Americans don't have enough savings to deal with unexpected expenses that total
as little as $400"
"Veterans [hospitals] . . . are broken"
"Almost all institutions – governments, schools, media and businesses – have
lost credibility in the eyes of the public. And perhaps for good reason: Many of our
problems have been around for a long time and are not aging well."
"Politics is increasingly divisive, and government is increasingly dysfunctional "
He also rails against the education and healthcare systems, saying:
"Our education and health issues come together in this alarming statistic: Seventy percent
of today's youth (ages 17-24) are not eligible for military service , essentially due to a
lack of proper education (basic reading and writing skills) or health issues (commonly
obesity or diabetes)."
Dimon goes on to explain that all of these problems "may explain why, over the last 10
years, the U.S. economy has grown cumulatively only about 18%. "
"Some think that this sounds satisfactory, but it must be put into context: In prior sharp
downturns (1974, 1982 and 1990), economic growth was 40% over the ensuing 10 years."
The country ultimately needs to "move beyond our differences and self-interest and act for
the greater good," Dimon said. "The good news is that this is fixable."
Of course, a strong economic rebound is good for JP Morgan, and waxing about the threat
posed by Big Tech could help the CEO push for less regulation even under a Democratic
Administration. Is Dimon once again just talking his book?
"Our education and health issues come together in this alarming statistic: Seventy percent
of today's youth (ages 17-24) are not eligible for military service , essentially due to a
lack of proper education (basic reading and writing skills) or health issues (commonly
obesity or diabetes)."
When you have no standards, SJW everyone is equal, then you have ****ty results.
5G-Powered Nanobots 3 hours ago
Good. Lets cut "defense" by 25% a year for the next 10 years
Clockwork Orange is complete, unbelievable nonsense. Our current leaders would not have
cured Alex, they would have appointed him an Ambassadorship to Syria or made him Vice
President, perhaps even given him a shot at Prime Minister or President one day.
Yes, but on condition that the 'Alexes' play the game. Deep State is full of sociopaths but
they spent their years in elite schools, not stealing cars and invading homes. Go to school,
get your degree, and then you can invade entire nations and kill many more people. Turk 152 says:
April 2, 2021 at 9:33
pm GMT • 4.8 days ago ↑ @Priss Factor
I suppose it is pretty tough these days to be a mass murderer on a global scale without
Harvard or Yale on your resume. In the old days, Truman was able to drop 2 atomic bombs and
firebomb Dresden with merely a degree from Spalding's Commercial College.
Other that that this ilist is just another sign of the crisi of neoliberlaism in the USA
and elsewhere. That why neoliberal elite badly needs a scapegoat to avoid the possibility to
be hanging from lampposts. The high level of hate toward neoliberal elite( parcially
redirected by "woke" movement toward whites ) and the loss of legitimacy is not
undeniable.
...Bryan MacDonald's thread is a good opportunity to update our list of all the issues,
ideas and things Russia has weaponized.
Even while the list below now includes 111 entries - like robotic cockroaches,
postmodernism and 14-legged squids - it is likely far from being complete:
I am deeply troubled that you conveniently neglected to include another fearsome Russian
Super-Dooper Weapon: the children's cartoon Masha and the Bear .
It's obvious that Masha and the Bear is a nefarious Russian plot to steal the precious
bodily fluids of our children!
We must be constantly vigilant. The CIA, FBI, MI6, NSA, and Homeland Security must be
notified about the Masha Threat. YouTube must censor Masha. And blue check-marked Twitter
police must condemn anyone who watches Masha.
This one didn't have the word 'weaponize', close though: "opening a new front in its spy
battles".
accusing the Kremlin of opening a new front in its spy battles with the West amid the
worldwide competition to contain the pandemic.
...
American intelligence officials said the Russians were aiming to steal research to
develop their own vaccine more quickly, not to sabotage other countries' efforts. There was
likely little immediate damage to global public health, cybersecurity experts said.
The U.S. media is weaponizing ignorance. The more one absorbs their reporting, the more
the brain is reduced to mush.
I can only manage a few hundred works and I become irritated and disoriented. My hat is
off to people who can somehow look at that stuff and remain sane. Or are they...hmmm...
> Russia isn't going to invade Ukraine, much as their leaders and press seem to lose
sleep endlessly over it.
This is about blocking North Stream 2. Ukrainian government is a puppet in a bigger
geopolitical game and will do what they are told to do.
If they were ordered to invade Donbass Russia might intervene. I think Russia movement of
troupes was a pre-preemptive move to block a joint plan of the USA and some Eastern(Poland) and
Western European states to create a crisis and bury North Stream 2 by the attempt to retake the
territory by force (Georgian scenario).
While writing resolutions in which they essentially declare war on Russia (retaking Crimea
by force as a new Ukrainian government policy) Ukrainian government clearly understands that
any significant military move in Donbass might be the end of Ukraine as we know it. So they are
afraid to do anything without strong Western support, including military. That's why Biden
administration made a statement about the support of Ukrainian sovereignty and, at the same
time, probably pushing Ukrainians to make a move in Donbass.
There are two parts of Ukraine with different history and affiliations: Eastern Ukraine and
Western Ukraine.
The regime in Kiev represents Western Ukrainian nationalism and it is/was to a certain
degree resented in Eastern Ukraine (where manufacturing is concentrated) as provincial,
incompetent and corrupt. It is controlled by a handful of oligarchs -- a classic neoliberal
oligarchic republic so to speak.
That does not mean that Eastern Ukraine would welcome Russians now (after seven years of
anti-Russian propaganda by the government), but please do not write about things you have no
clue: in 2014 the situation was different with several uprisings against Provisional government
in Eastern Ukraine.
IMHO it was Putin's decision to limit Russia role that led to the current situation. As far
as I know the only large city which supported Provisional government in the East in 2014 was
Dnepropetrovsk ( the home town of oligarch Kolomoyskyi, and nationalistic politicians Kuchma
and Tymoshenko.)
IMHO Putin has the ability to occupy all Eastern Ukraine without a single shot and establish
separate "Eastern Ukrainian republic" government. But he decided not to do as the it would
result in crushing Western sanctions (which was Washington's policy from the very beginning
(google Nulangate); and that's why 2014 EuroMaidan putsch was organized and financed by the USA
with Poland, Germany and Sweden in supporting roles).
Add to this the necessary to feed pensioners (mentioned above) and the amount of money
necessary to resurrect the manufacturing which would compete with Russian's own. Which Russia
probably could not afford at the time.
REPLYHOLE IN HEAD IGNORED04/04/2021
at 4:44 am
> Russia isn't going to invade Ukraine, much as their leaders and press seem to lose
sleep endlessly over it.
This is about blocking North Stream 2. Ukrainian government is a puppet in a bigger
geopolitical game and will do what they are told to do.
If they were ordered to invade Donbass Russia might intervene. I think Russia movement of
troupes was a pre-preemptive move to block a joint plan of the USA and some Eastern(Poland) and
Western European states to create a crisis and bury North Stream 2 by the attempt to retake the
territory by force (Georgian scenario).
While writing resolutions in which they essentially declare war on Russia (retaking
Crimea by force as a new Ukrainian government policy) Ukrainian government clearly understands
that any significant military move in Donbass might be the end of Ukraine as we know it. So
they are afraid to do anything without strong Western support, including military. That's why
Biden administration made a statement about the support of Ukrainian sovereignty and, at the
same time, probably pushing Ukrainians to make a move in Donbass.
There are two parts of Ukraine with different history and affiliations: Eastern Ukraine
and Western Ukraine.
The regime in Kiev represents Western Ukrainian nationalism and it is/was to a certain
degree resented in Eastern Ukraine (where manufacturing is concentrated) as provincial,
incompetent and corrupt. It is controlled by a handful of oligarchs -- a classic neoliberal
oligarchic republic so to speak.
That does not mean that Eastern Ukraine would welcome Russians now (after seven years of
anti-Russian propaganda by the government), but please do not write about things you have no
clue: in 2014 the situation was different with several uprisings against Provisional government
in Eastern Ukraine.
IMHO it was Putin's decision to limit Russia role that led to the current situation. As
far as I know the only large city which supported Provisional government in the East in 2014
was Dnepropetrovsk ( the home town of oligarch Kolomoyskyi, and nationalistic politicians
Kuchma and Tymoshenko.)
IMHO Putin has the ability to occupy all Eastern Ukraine without a single shot and
establish separate "Eastern Ukrainian republic" government. But he decided not to do as the it
would result in crushing Western sanctions (which was Washington's policy from the very
beginning (google Nulangate); and that's why 2014 EuroMaidan putsch was organized and financed
by the USA with Poland, Germany and Sweden in supporting roles).
Add to this the necessary to feed pensioners (mentioned above) and the amount of money
necessary to resurrect the manufacturing which would compete with Russian's own. Which Russia
probably could not afford at the time.
REPLY HOLE IN HEAD IGNORED 04/04/2021
at 4:44 am
The globalists are behaving just like the Bolsheviks of old. It is down right scary to see
this happen in America. We lost the major cities 40 or 50 years ago and now the entire
country (except that 1 percent stealing all the money) is on the verge of going 3rd world
banana republic.
drjd 6 hours ago
If this was truly "communism", would 1% be stealing all the money? Why don't we just call
it what it really is: "globalist crony capitalism."
YuriTheClown 2 hours ago
The internationalists are behaving just like the Bolsheviks of old.
You must not know your history. High powered US bankers prop up the big Bolshevik names in
New York until it was time to loose them on Russia. Then they financed the whole
operation.
And who is financing the Bolsheviks in the USA now???
artless 1 hour ago remove link
The word you are looking for is fascism. This use of "crony this" and "crony that" along
with ANY use of the word capitalism-because their is nothing capitalist about any of this-
needs to stop. It is fascism. Not communism, not socialism...
It has been argued that the phrase Et tu, Brute can be interpreted as a curse or
warning. It is possible that Caesar adapted the words of a Greek sentence "You too, my son, will
have a taste of power", which to the Romans had long since become proverbial. It foreshadows
Brutus ' own
violent death, after Antony and Octavian decisively defeated the outnumbered armies of Brutus and
Cassius at the Battle
of Philippi in October 42. After the battle, Brutus committed suicide.
This is not only about IMF being a puppet of the USA. this is also clear reputation of
neoliberal ideology.
After this move any defender of neoliberal deregulation looks like joke.
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) says it backs a U.S. proposal for a global minimum
corporate tax.
IMF Chief Economist Gita Gopinath said that the fund has been calling for international
cooperation on tax policy "for a long time," adding that different corporate tax rates around
the world have fueled tax shifting and avoidance.
"That reduces the revenues that governments collect to do the needed social and economic
spending," Gopinath told Yahoo Finance Tuesday. "We're very much in support of having this kind
of global minimum corporate tax."
Gopinath's remarks are likely to add momentum to U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen's
efforts to start an international dialogue on a new framework. The European Commission on
Tuesday also said it supported
discussions , but said the ultimate rate should be deliberated through the Organisation for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD).
Yellen recently called on the 20 largest economies to work together to "stop the race to the
bottom" by setting a new minimum that would allow governments more stability in collecting tax
revenue. The Biden administration is targeting a 21% global minimum tax for U.S. multinational
corporations.
"It is important to work with other countries to end the pressures of tax competition and
corporate tax base erosion," Yellen said in a speech Monday.
U.S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen said on Monday that she is working with G20 countries
to agree on a global corporate minimum tax rate and pledged that restoring U.S. multilateral
leadership would strengthen the global economy and advance U.S. interests.
In a speech ahead of her first International Monetary Fund and World Bank Spring Meetings as
Treasury chief, Yellen signaled stronger U.S. engagement on issues from climate change to human
rights to tax base erosion.
A global minimum tax proposed by the Biden administration could help to end a "thirty-year
race to the bottom on corporate tax rates," Yellen told an online event hosted by the Chicago
Council on Global Affairs.
The proposal is a key pillar of President Joe Biden's $2 trillion infrastructure spending
plan, which calls for an increase in the U.S. corporate tax rate to 28% while eliminating some
deductions associated with overseas profits.
Without a global minimum, the United States would again have higher rates than a number of
other major economies, tax experts say, while the U.S. proposal could help jump-start
negotiations for a tax deal among major economies.
World Bank President David Malpass said finance leaders from the Group of 20 major economies
on Wednesday would discuss global tax issues, including for digital services, adding that
international attitudes were shifting away from continual tax reductions.
"Taxes matter to development, and it's important that the world get it right," Malpass told
CNBC television.
Separately, a group of Democratic senators unveiled a legislative proposal to roll back
parts of former President Donald Trump's 2017 U.S. tax cuts.
Mexico's government said it reached a deal with union and business
leaders on a controversial bill to ban outsourcing in a move that seeks to close tax loopholes.
The group agreed during a meeting at the National Palace in Mexico City on Monday to forbid
the outsourcing of personnel to third-party firms, except for specialized work outside a
company's main economic activity, and to implement a new profit sharing model, the labor
ministry said in a
statement .
"... Do Mr. Biden and his people claim that the dogmatic and occasionally hysterical certitude of the woke is sufficient warrant to turn the country upside down? ..."
"... If the 2020 election meant anything, it confirmed the irreconcilable differences -- a standoff of the cobra and mongoose. The election certainly didn't give Mr. Biden marching orders from the American people to open the southern border to all comers, or to redesign the natural order of biology (in regard to gender identity and all the social arrangements that have flowed from the difference between the sexes since time immemorial), or to change the country in a hundred other ways, bundling it off on an expedition to the far left fringes of reality and grievance. What the new administration proposes may be less a transformation than a hijacking. Half the country doesn't want to be reinvented -- not on Mr. Biden's terms. ..."
"... He and his people have gone into business with a bogus, echo-chamber mandate: They manipulate a media illusion of unanimity, and presume to impose a moral narrative. The Bolsheviks, a tiny but ferociously focused minority, proceeded in this way in 1917. ..."
While Trump was rejected by electorate (Biden got 7 million votes more -- mainly in costal
states and large cities), Biden was elected only because of extention of mail-in voting and
because he was not Trump. Now people regret their choice, while main-in voting "irregularities"
deprive Biden administration of the legitimacy. Moreover due to Biden neocon foreign policy and
pandering to woke Bolsheviks, many people have "post-election remorse," But in two-party system
you can do nothing about it: the train already left the station.
Now the Biden administration, headed by a man a few years too old to be a boomer, entertains
ambitions to take a great leap forward. But wait. Does a transformation require a mandate? By
what mandate does the Biden administration undertake the work of irrevocably altering American
society? Do Mr. Biden and his people claim that the dogmatic and occasionally hysterical
certitude of the woke is sufficient warrant to turn the country upside down?
There was no mandate in the outcome of the last election. November 2020 merely confirmed
that the U.S. remains split precisely down the middle, 50-50, as it has been for more than 20
years, since the deadlock of Al Gore and George W. Bush and the hanging chads of Florida.
If the 2020 election meant anything, it confirmed the irreconcilable differences -- a
standoff of the cobra and mongoose. The election certainly didn't give Mr. Biden marching
orders from the American people to open the southern border to all comers, or to redesign the
natural order of biology (in regard to gender identity and all the social arrangements that
have flowed from the difference between the sexes since time immemorial), or to change the
country in a hundred other ways, bundling it off on an expedition to the far left fringes of
reality and grievance. What the new administration proposes may be less a transformation than a
hijacking. Half the country doesn't want to be reinvented -- not on Mr. Biden's terms.
He and his people have gone into business with a bogus, echo-chamber mandate: They
manipulate a media illusion of unanimity, and presume to impose a moral narrative. The
Bolsheviks, a tiny but ferociously focused minority, proceeded in this way in 1917.
... ... ...
Mr. Morrow is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. His latest book
is "God and Mammon: Chronicles of American Money."
Peter Von Nessi SUBSCRIBER 29 minutes ago "A man of his age --
fearing that he may amount to nothing more than the great Obama's onetime sidekick -- is apt to
react to the surprise of waking up in the White House by pandering to the flashiest ideas of
the young people and their hero Bernie Sanders. Mr. Biden can, for a moment, forestall death if
he veers way left and makes his mark, however chaotically."
I think the author gives too much credit to Biden and not his handlers. After all Pinocchio
was made of wood. When was the last time you saw a piece of wood think....about anything? SHOW
MORE REPLIES
N Neil Steinhoff SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago Joe did not know which state he was in, what office
he was running for and said 150 million Americans have died of Covid Here is an update from
Joe. "I have been in government for 180 years". "I wake up every morning, look at Jill, and say
'where the he- are we?'" on February 17, 2021. What could possibly go wrong? Greg Caldwell SUBSCRIBER 58 minutes ago (Edited) Mr. Ferrara: Many
people voted for Joe's ideas because he claimed to be more of a centrist while he was running
for office. I know of quite a few people who voted for Joe (1) because he wasn't Trump, and;
(2) he claimed he would govern from the middle-left.
Those people are now saying they didn't vote for anything he has done to the jobs, to
energy, nor do they buy his lies about Covid Relief (only 9% of over $1.9T actually went to
Covid); the Infrastructure bill (of which only 7% actually has anything to do with our
infrastructure); or, finally the repeated outright lies about the Georgian Voting Law. People
who voted for him are paying attention and many are not happy.
Like thumb_up Reply reply Share link Report
flag
M Melissa Firestone SUBSCRIBER 49 minutes ago Vote counting continued on and on in pivotal
states in 2020. That's why 2016 was so different than 2020. And in 2020, pivotal states were
decided by less than 21,000 votes - WI, AZ, and GA. And PA and MI were more competitive than
the polls showed going into election night. Votes continued to be counted days after the
election and as we know in some cases weeks. That's why this wasn't a mandate for Biden. It was
a rejection of Trump by the marginal voter - the ones who in tight elections determine
outcomes. The same was true for Trump when he won - Hillary was so hated by so many voting
blocks the Republicans could have run any of their potential nominees and would have won.
G George Nesterenko SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago Claiming the WH, and both chambers of Congress
is, in deed a mandate.
The only measure by which the election was 'close' was the electoral college. By the number
of.. you know... actual people... there was no, and is no contest. That's is also, indeed, a
mandate.
And as demographics shift, the mandate deepens. Which is why the GOP is so adamant against
preventing a DC or Puerto Rico statehood. An unpopular, shrinking minority is desperately
holding on to any iota of power. Not 'half the country', as Mr. Morrow repeats on several
occasions.
A national rebirth is desperately needed. Although I doubt it will happen under Biden, we
can at least get on our way.
Like thumb_up 2 Reply reply Share link Report
flag
W william marx SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago Mr. Nesterenko, even if President Biden won by several
million votes, which I am not disputing, the fact that former President trump drew over 80
million votes suggests that the country is divided. Add to that a 50/50 split in the Senate and
a slim Dem majority in in the House leads to a conclusion that there is no mandate. Until both
parties stop shoving things down the other party's throat, we will not move forward.
J Jerry Beukelman SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago So you voted for a man who has no idea where he is?
Good for you. Would you like to lay odds on when the next press conference will be? I'll take,
never. Joe is one and done, they won't risk putting him on stage again, it is too obvious he
isn't all there. Another year or two, the Biden family can make some more cash, Nancy gets her
way till the House turns. And Harris can step in. That will be fun. A woman who polled 7% in
her own state during the primary can take control. God help us.
J jim markey SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago Trump and the GOP claimed Trump received a mandate in
2016 even though he lost the popular vote by 3 million.
Biden beat Trump by 7 million popular votes and a 4.45% popular vote spread.
That's much more of a mandate than Trump had.
Like thumb_up 3 Reply reply Share link Report
flag
M Melissa Firestone SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago You didn't see vote counting continuing on and on
in pivotal states in 2016. In 2016 the election was decided very early and key States that
hadn't voted Republican in more than two decades voted for Trump. That's why 2016 was so
different than 2020. And the pivotal states were decided by less than 21,000 votes - WI, AZ,
and GA. And PA and MI were more competitive than the polls showed going into election night.
That's why this wasn't a mandate for Biden. It was a rejection of Trump by the marginal voter -
the ones who in tight elections determine outcomes. The same was true for Trump when he won -
Hillary was so hated by so many voting blocks the Republicans could have run any of the
nominees and he would have won. ike thumb_up 12 Reply reply
Share link Report flag
M Michael Wilson SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago Yet American voters chose them over a dictatorship
led by Trump. If you don't like the results of having a 0-3 lose, then come up with a candidate
and agenda Americans want. Like thumb_up 4 Reply reply Share
link Report flag Rob Joseph SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago "I won't insult your intelligence by
suggesting that you really believe what you just said". William F. Buckley
At no time was Trump even close to a dictator. Trump wanted to push power to the states.
Exactly how is that dictatorial? However, the current crop of dems want to centralize power to
the federal government, so exactly who is the totalitarian party?
M Mac Moore SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago Nedd writes, "Biden has an approval rating approaching
55 percent. Trump never got above 50%."
Now, that's funny. What was the polled question? Was it, "do you approve of men joining
women's sports and bathrooms?". Or, was it, "do you approve of thousands of migrant lives being
destroyed by an open border that puts them at risk and children in peril?" Or, 'do you approve
of re-education classes that mandate that one much denounce their whiteness or be banned from
Gov't employment?" or "do you approve of Biden killing thousands of good paying oil pipeline
jobs?" Like thumb_up 5 Reply reply Share link Report
flag Rob Joseph SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago The gallup poll is from March 1. Let's
see what the new poll numbers are now after his spending spree and botched immigration policy
(Oh I'm sorry, what immigration policy). I couldn't stand Trump, but biden makes him look like
a statesman. He will divide the country further until there is no more US.
L Linda Briscoe SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago The election of2020 was not a mandate of Democratic
policies. The mandate was to be shed of Donald J Trump. We accomplished that, I hope. Now the
challenge is to wrench control of the Democratic Party out of the hands of the radical few, and
back into the hands of the moderate many.
The idea of a Silent Majority may not be new, but I believe it is as relevant as it ever
was. Most people don't focus a lot of their time on politics. They're too busy just trying to
make a living, creating or nurturing a loving family, and trying to create a home they enjoy
and can be proud of. A living wage, a liveable home of their own, and a loving family; that's
the real American dream. Royal Martin SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago President Biden;
"Just imagine all those young voters coming across our southern border that I can impress
with open arms."
e thumb_up 9 Reply reply Share link Report
flag
J James Bruning SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago How are Biden and the progressive Democrats getting
away with this charade? True, the liberal press provides cover by not reporting or fairly
reporting the egregious blunders of the Biden administration, but that does not explain why
most American voters are viewing Biden as someone who is honest and deserving of trust. They
know he is an unaccomplished "geezer" so in the absence of a coordinated, unified "push back"
by Republicans one can assume they want a much different America Like thumb_up 8 Reply
reply Share link Report flag
M Melissa Firestone SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago How are the "getting away with" this??? We voted
them in...and the "news" media is NOT news anymore. It is another arm of the Democrat/Socialist
movement. Biden lied during the debates, but he wasn't shy about his true objectives - they
were posted right on his web site. Like thumb_up Reply reply
Share link Report flag
M Melissa Firestone SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago "What the new administration proposes may be
less a transformation than a hijacking. Half the country doesn't want to be reinvented -- not
on Mr. Biden's terms."
Couldn't have said it better myself. People are not liking what they are seeing with Biden
in office. Just today I had a conversation with a phlebotomist who put it in very easy to
understand terms. "They are just dictating what we can and can't do, what we can and can't buy,
that we have to take care of illegal citizens, while we have millions who are never going to
recover from the impacts of shutting down our economy - that's not a free country." She's 100%
correct yet clearly not an "expert," just a consumer. But she can see more nonsensical policy
implications coming. Specifically she mentioned unaffordable utility bills with going to 100%
green energy and that she didn't want to be "forced" to buy an electric car. I don't believe
she's alone in seeing what's coming with Dem control...and it isn't good
S Sherrill Schein SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago As bad and vacuous as Biden is, what will follow
him will be much worse, starting with Kamala Harris. Louis XIV, who preceded the French
Revolution and Biden both share the same argument to try to retain their thrones. "After me,
the deluge." ke thumb_up 3 Reply reply Share link
Report flag
M Michael Barbour SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago Biden is neither a moderate or a unifier and even
his Covid policies are mostly just an extension of what was started by the previous WH
administration. I didn't like Trump either, but Biden's actions and policies are hastening the
decline of the U.S.
M Michael OFarrell SUBSCRIBER 3 hours ago Biden, or whoever is actually in charge, is
giving this country away. It will the younger generation that will pay the price. Like
thumb_up 6 Reply reply Share link Report
flag
M Mark A. Rosasco SUBSCRIBER 3 hours ago "A whole generation with a new explanation" ,
history definitely rhymes.
According to John Kenneth Galbraith, financial memory is usually about 20 years, then
lessons need to be re-leaned the hard way, either with financial euphoria or I would say with
tax polices that promote economic growth.
"... Do Mr. Biden and his people claim that the dogmatic and occasionally hysterical certitude of the woke is sufficient warrant to turn the country upside down? ..."
"... If the 2020 election meant anything, it confirmed the irreconcilable differences -- a standoff of the cobra and mongoose. The election certainly didn't give Mr. Biden marching orders from the American people to open the southern border to all comers, or to redesign the natural order of biology (in regard to gender identity and all the social arrangements that have flowed from the difference between the sexes since time immemorial), or to change the country in a hundred other ways, bundling it off on an expedition to the far left fringes of reality and grievance. What the new administration proposes may be less a transformation than a hijacking. Half the country doesn't want to be reinvented -- not on Mr. Biden's terms. ..."
"... He and his people have gone into business with a bogus, echo-chamber mandate: They manipulate a media illusion of unanimity, and presume to impose a moral narrative. The Bolsheviks, a tiny but ferociously focused minority, proceeded in this way in 1917. ..."
While Trump was rejected by electorate (Biden got 7 million votes more -- mainly in costal
states and large cities), Biden was elected only because of extention of mail-in voting and
because he was not Trump. Now people regret their choice, while main-in voting "irregularities"
deprive Biden administration of the legitimacy. Moreover due to Biden neocon foreign policy and
pandering to woke Bolsheviks, many people have "post-election remorse," But in two-party system
you can do nothing about it: the train already left the station.
Now the Biden administration, headed by a man a few years too old to be a boomer, entertains
ambitions to take a great leap forward. But wait. Does a transformation require a mandate? By
what mandate does the Biden administration undertake the work of irrevocably altering American
society? Do Mr. Biden and his people claim that the dogmatic and occasionally hysterical
certitude of the woke is sufficient warrant to turn the country upside down?
There was no mandate in the outcome of the last election. November 2020 merely confirmed
that the U.S. remains split precisely down the middle, 50-50, as it has been for more than 20
years, since the deadlock of Al Gore and George W. Bush and the hanging chads of Florida.
If the 2020 election meant anything, it confirmed the irreconcilable differences -- a
standoff of the cobra and mongoose. The election certainly didn't give Mr. Biden marching
orders from the American people to open the southern border to all comers, or to redesign the
natural order of biology (in regard to gender identity and all the social arrangements that
have flowed from the difference between the sexes since time immemorial), or to change the
country in a hundred other ways, bundling it off on an expedition to the far left fringes of
reality and grievance. What the new administration proposes may be less a transformation than a
hijacking. Half the country doesn't want to be reinvented -- not on Mr. Biden's terms.
He and his people have gone into business with a bogus, echo-chamber mandate: They
manipulate a media illusion of unanimity, and presume to impose a moral narrative. The
Bolsheviks, a tiny but ferociously focused minority, proceeded in this way in 1917.
... ... ...
Mr. Morrow is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. His latest book
is "God and Mammon: Chronicles of American Money."
Peter Von Nessi SUBSCRIBER 29 minutes ago "A man of his age --
fearing that he may amount to nothing more than the great Obama's onetime sidekick -- is apt to
react to the surprise of waking up in the White House by pandering to the flashiest ideas of
the young people and their hero Bernie Sanders. Mr. Biden can, for a moment, forestall death if
he veers way left and makes his mark, however chaotically."
I think the author gives too much credit to Biden and not his handlers. After all Pinocchio
was made of wood. When was the last time you saw a piece of wood think....about anything? SHOW
MORE REPLIES
N Neil Steinhoff SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago Joe did not know which state he was in, what office
he was running for and said 150 million Americans have died of Covid Here is an update from
Joe. "I have been in government for 180 years". "I wake up every morning, look at Jill, and say
'where the he- are we?'" on February 17, 2021. What could possibly go wrong? Greg Caldwell SUBSCRIBER 58 minutes ago (Edited) Mr. Ferrara: Many
people voted for Joe's ideas because he claimed to be more of a centrist while he was running
for office. I know of quite a few people who voted for Joe (1) because he wasn't Trump, and;
(2) he claimed he would govern from the middle-left.
Those people are now saying they didn't vote for anything he has done to the jobs, to
energy, nor do they buy his lies about Covid Relief (only 9% of over $1.9T actually went to
Covid); the Infrastructure bill (of which only 7% actually has anything to do with our
infrastructure); or, finally the repeated outright lies about the Georgian Voting Law. People
who voted for him are paying attention and many are not happy.
Like thumb_up Reply reply Share link Report
flag
M Melissa Firestone SUBSCRIBER 49 minutes ago Vote counting continued on and on in pivotal
states in 2020. That's why 2016 was so different than 2020. And in 2020, pivotal states were
decided by less than 21,000 votes - WI, AZ, and GA. And PA and MI were more competitive than
the polls showed going into election night. Votes continued to be counted days after the
election and as we know in some cases weeks. That's why this wasn't a mandate for Biden. It was
a rejection of Trump by the marginal voter - the ones who in tight elections determine
outcomes. The same was true for Trump when he won - Hillary was so hated by so many voting
blocks the Republicans could have run any of their potential nominees and would have won.
G George Nesterenko SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago Claiming the WH, and both chambers of Congress
is, in deed a mandate.
The only measure by which the election was 'close' was the electoral college. By the number
of.. you know... actual people... there was no, and is no contest. That's is also, indeed, a
mandate.
And as demographics shift, the mandate deepens. Which is why the GOP is so adamant against
preventing a DC or Puerto Rico statehood. An unpopular, shrinking minority is desperately
holding on to any iota of power. Not 'half the country', as Mr. Morrow repeats on several
occasions.
A national rebirth is desperately needed. Although I doubt it will happen under Biden, we
can at least get on our way.
"... It is unbelievable how much the media can lie. I don't even know what I should believe any more. ..."
"... Why does our mainstream media cheer on these politicians instead of denouncing them? The answer: They're working together. They stick to these elites. How can it be that our mainstream media is always demanding that German soldiers should be sent on new military adventures in foreign countries, even though the majority of the population is clearly against this? The answer Our alpha journalists are nothing more than the long arm of the NATO press office. We will also go into great detail to prove this in this book. How can it be that our mainstream media continues to celebrate mass immigration from all over the world as "enrichment," even though the majority of Germans would rather close the borders to certain migrants today rather than tomorrow? The answer Industry and the financial elite want it this way, because a massive influx of cheap labor serves their interests. ..."
"... if the citizens aren't in charge, then who is? Could it be a group of opinion makers, a group of the most important and influential heavyweights from industry, finance and politics who are pulling the strings behind the scenes and controlling our thinking through the mainstream media? ..."
The actress Hildegard Knef once said to me, "It is unbelievable how much the media can lie.
I don't even know what I should believe any more." We met in August 1997, at the Bremen-based
talk show Nach Neun (Three after Nine).** We drank a glass of wine after the show in a local
hotel. Indignantly, Hildegard Knef related the liberties journalists had taken in reporting
about her life. She said, "Only one thing is true about journalists: they are in the business
of lying."
A few months before that and nearly 5600 kilometers away from Bremen, I heard
something similar while I was on a trip in Ethiopia. This time I was talking with Karlheinz
B6hm, the actor who played Emperor Franz Joseph at Romy Schneider's side in the "Sissi" film
trilogy about Empress Elisabeth of Austria. I visited him in the highlands of Ethiopia.
Hildegard Knef and Karlheinz Bohm - two legends of the German cinema - no longer trust the
German media. This gave me a lot to think about. After all, 'Thou shalt not bear false
witness," was one of the highest moral commandments at one time. Alas, now we consider
journalists to be the greatest liars out there.
Udo Lindenberg, a German rock music legend,
didn't have the best opinion of the media cither. We had a chance to discuss this in a
television studio's gfreenroom. Likewise the journalist Peter Scholl-Latour, whom I met many
times in war zones around the world since the late 80s. He liked to paraphrase Hiram Johnson's
old adage saying, "The first thing that falls by the wayside in war is the truth."
When I was
younger, these comments by Hildegard Knef, Karlheinz Bohm, Udo Lindenberg and Peter
Scholl-Latour seemed like conspiracy theories to me. Are they really? Later on, I started to
hear things like this more frequently, for example, from my friend, Professor Wilhelm Hankel, a
man who always seemed like a father to me. He was the man who developed the German treasury
bills.
The Truth - A Journalist Exclusive?
How can it be that our mainstream media celebrate the European Union and the euro currency
as a project for the future, even though millions of people throughout Europe are critical of
the EU and the euro? Jean-Claude Juncker, longtime head of Luxembourg's government and the
current President of the European Commission, tells us how this works:
"We decide on something, put it out there and wait and see what happens. If no one
kicks up a fuss, no rioting in the streets, since most people haven no clue what's been
decided, we continue, step by step, until there is no turning back. "
Why does our mainstream media cheer on these politicians instead of denouncing them? The
answer: They're working together. They stick to these elites. How can it be that our mainstream
media is always demanding that German soldiers should be sent on new military adventures in
foreign countries, even though the majority of the population is clearly against this? The
answer Our alpha journalists are nothing more than the long arm of the NATO press office. We
will also go into great detail to prove this in this book. How can it be that our mainstream
media continues to celebrate mass immigration from all over the world as "enrichment," even
though the majority of Germans would rather close the borders to certain migrants today rather
than tomorrow? The answer Industry and the financial elite want it this way, because a massive
influx of cheap labor serves their interests.
This list of piercing questions could go on forever. However, the most important question
behind all of it is: Who is really governing Europe? It surely isn't the citizens of the EU,
because what's going on in Europe has little to do with democracy. It is more of an illusion of
democracy, a well-crafted illusion. Still, if the citizens aren't in charge, then who is?
Could it be a group of opinion makers, a group of the most important and influential
heavyweights from industry, finance and politics who are pulling the strings behind the scenes
and controlling our thinking through the mainstream media?
"... Back then, I didn't know how contemptuously intelligence agencies spoke about journalists. "You can get a journalist for less than a good whore, for a few hundred dollars a month." These are the words of a CIA agent, as quoted by the Washington Post editor Philip Graham. The agent was referring to the willingness and the price journalists would accept to spread CIA propaganda reports in their articles. ..."
"... I inevitably found out during my decades abroad, almost every foreign reporter with an American or British newspaper was also active for their national intelligence services. That's just something to keep in mind whenever you think you've got "neutral" reporting by the media in front of you. I remember when I got involved with the Federal Academy for Security Politics, with their close ties to intelligence agencies. This was encouraged by my employer. ..."
Looking back, I was a lobbyist. A lobbyist tries to, for example, influence public opinion
through mainstream media in favor of special interest groups. I did that.
Like for the German Foreign Intelligence Service. The FAZ expressly encouraged me to
strengthen my contact with the Western intelligence services and was delighted when I signed my
name to the pre-formulated reports, at least in outline, that I sometimes received from
them.
Like many of the reports I was fed by intelligence services, one of many examples I can
remember well was the expose, "European Companies Help Libya Build a Second Poison Gas Factory"
from March 16, 1993. Needless to say, the report caused a stir around the world.
However, I watched as two employees of the German Federal Intelligence Service (the German
CIA, the Bundesnachrichtendienst or BND), drafted it in a meeting room of the FAZ offices at
Hellerhofstrasse 2 in Frankfurt. In other words: They basically told me what to write,
paragraph for paragraph, right there in the FAZ editorial offices and then the article was
published. One of the duties of these two BND employees was writing reports for
large-circulation German newspapers. According to employee accounts, the BND fed reports to
many German newspapers at the time - with the knowledge of their publishing houses.
The Federal Intelligence Service even had a little front company with an office directly
above a shop on the Mainzer Landstrasse in Frankfurt, only two blocks away from the FAZ's main
office. In any case, they had classified materials there that came from the BND.
Once you became a "player" on the team that drafted such articles, this was followed by the
next level of "cooperation": You would be given stacks of secret documents that you could
evaluate at your leisure. I remember we brought in a steel filing cabinet just for all the
secret reports at the FAZ. (When I was visiting colleagues at a magazine in Hamburg, I saw that
they'd done the same thing in their editorial offices).
Back then, I didn't know how contemptuously intelligence agencies spoke about
journalists. "You can get a journalist for less than a good whore, for a few hundred dollars a
month." These are the words of a CIA agent, as quoted by the Washington Post editor Philip
Graham. The agent was referring to the willingness and the price journalists would accept to
spread CIA propaganda reports in their articles. Of course, this was also with the
approval of their employers, who knew about and encouraged all of this.
In Germany, the Federal Intelligence Service was the extended arm of the CIA, basically a
subsidiary. I was never offered money by the Federal Intelligence Service, but they never even
had to. I, like many of my German colleagues, found it thrilling to be a freelance writer for
an intelligence agency or to be allowed to work for them in any capacity at all.40
... ... ...
During the summer of 2005 when I was the "chief correspondent" of the glossy magazine Park
Avenue, I had a phone call with the Director of the CIA James Woolsey, which lasted more than
an hour. His wife is active in the transatlantic propaganda organization German Marshall Fund
(but we'll touch on this later). Sitting in my Hamburg office at Griiner + Jalir publishing, I
was amazed that I didn't lose the connection, because at the beginning of our conversation
Woolsey was sitting in his office in Virginia, then he was in a limousine and after that in a
helicopter. The connection was so good, it was as if he was sitting right next to me. We spoke
about industrial espionage. Woolsey wanted me to publish a report through Griiner + Jahr that
would give the impression that the USA doesn't carry out any industrial espionage in Germany
through their intelligence services. For me, the absurd thing about this conversation wasn't
its content, which was fortunately never printed. What I really found absurd was that after the
conversation, Griiner + Jahr sent the CIA henchman Woolsey's secretary in Virginia a bouquet of
flowers after the call, because someone at Griiner + Jahr wanted to keep the line to the CIA
open.
Moreover, don t forget that in addition to 6,000 salaried employees, the Federal
Intelligence Service has around 17,000 more "informal" employees. They have completely ordinary
day jobs, and would never openly admit that they also work for the Federal Intelligence
Service. It is the same all over the world. As I inevitably found out during my decades
abroad, almost every foreign reporter with an American or British newspaper was also active for
their national intelligence services. That's just something to keep in mind whenever you think
you've got "neutral" reporting by the media in front of you. I remember when I got involved
with the Federal Academy for Security Politics, with their close ties to intelligence agencies.
This was encouraged by my employer.
I also remember that in the late summer of 1993 I was given time off to accept a six-week
invitation from the transatlantic lobbying organization, the German Marshall Fund of the
United States. All of this surely affected my reporting. The German Marshall Fund sent me to
New York, and I did a night shift with police officers in the Bronx. I wrote an article for the
FAZ about this titled: "The toughest policemen in the world go through these doors." It was one
of many positive articles I wrote about the USA - discreetly organized by the German Marshall
Fund.
It may be hard to believe, but I was actually given a loaded firearm in New York. There's
even a photo of the New York City Police Department handing it to me. The reader didn't learn
anything about what was going on behind the scenes, behind this favorable reporting in the FAZ.
They also didn't find out about the discreet contacts I made during my stay in the US. These
included a
"... his original title Bought Journalists (Gekaufte Journalisten) was kinder and more modest than my more sensational Presstitutes -- but as he had a pithy sense of humor, ..."
"... There is no free speech protection for setting fire to a crowded theater! In my book ISIS IS U.S., in fury at the fakery of these warmongers, I castigate the mainstream media, the MSM, as the МММ: the Mass Murdering Media, as well as the Military-Monetary- Media complex. Notice how the media only point the finger at the military and industry, but mum's the word about the money masters and the media manipulators, they who control the nerve system of the zombie nation, military-industrial complex and all? ..."
"... Sharmine Narwani is right. These are media combatants, these are war criminals, the lowest circle of hell in the ranks of crimes. ..."
What Is Freedom of the Press? Can censorship be freedom of the press? Legal minds favoring the interests of capital may be quick
to claim that newspaper owners and editors have a freedom-of-speech right to print what they think is fit to print. They affirm a
right of censorship or advocacy, above the duty to hew the line of objective reporting. Business, but not government, they say, may
restrict press freedom.
However, this attitude confuses two very distinct classes of law, the Bill of Rights and civil contract law. The First Amendment
merely forbids the government from infringing on freedom of expression. Thus if communist and nationalist parties each wish to publish
their own books or newspapers, congenial to their respective viewpoints, the state should not intervene. Most newspapers, however,
claim to be independent, objective or non- partisan. Thus there is an implied contract to provide an information service to readers.
Advertising in the paper should be clearly labeled as such. Truly independent media are a public service entrusted with a fiduciary
duty, similar to civil servants. The power and influence of their office is under their care, it is not theirs personally. Thus arises
the temptation of corruption, of selling favors. For a large corporation, the financial value of a decision by an official or a newspaperman
may easily dwarf the salary of the poor fellow, who may sell himself for pennies on the dollar.
A paper that claims to be independent when it actually serves hidden interests is guilty of fraud. That of course comes under
another branch of law, the criminal code.
We hear much more about political corruption, but media corruption may actually be worse. Media reporters are our eyes and ears.
What if our senses didn't reflect what is happening around us, but instead some kind of fantasy, or even remote programming? (Which
sounds a lot like TV;-) If our eyes fooled us like that, we would be asleep and dreaming with eyes open, or disabled, hospitalized
for hallucinations. We could never be masters of our own affairs, without a reliable sensorium. So the media must serve the nation
just as our senses must faithfully serve each one of us. But they serve themselves. With the media we have, we are a zombie nation.
Of course, it's hard to be objective on topics like politics which are matters of opinion. That's what the op-ed page is for. The
problem is systematic bias, when money talks in the news pages.
As a freshman in college, I once volunteered to be a stringer on the college paper, and was sent out to interview some subjects
on a campus controversy. I didn't seem to be cut out for a hard hitting journalist either! The episode always reminds me of a Mulla
Nasrudin story.
Mulla was serving as judge in the village, holding court in his garden. The plaintiff came and pleaded his case so convincingly,
that the Mulla blurted out. By Allah, I think you are right! His assistant demurred, But Mullah, you haven't heard the other side
yet! So now the defendant entered his plea, with even greater vigor and eloquence. Once again, the Mulla was so impressed, he cried
out, By Jove, I believe you are right! And once again his clerk protested: But Mulla, they can't both be right! Oh my God, exclaimed
the Mulla, I guess you are right, too!
My junior high school journalism teacher never tired of telling us. Journalism is a business. In theory it's a public trust, but
money makes the world go round. We all have to please the boss to keep our job. We are all bought one way or another. As Ulfkotte
points out, there are thousands of journalists looking for a job, not the other way about. So his original title Bought Journalists
(Gekaufte Journalisten) was kinder and more modest than my more sensational Presstitutes -- but as he had a pithy sense of humor,
I think he would have liked it anyway. The "privished" edition title Journalists for Hire seems to downplay the matter a shade though.
It's perfectly normal to be hired as a journalist, isn't it?
Perhaps we have to escalate the term to investigative journalist, because a journo is just somebody who writes things down.
In an interview ( https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2019/10/14/journalists-are-prostitutes ), Ulfkotte tells about his first assignment,
during the Iran-Iraq war. The international press corps set out from Baghdad into the desert with extra jerry cans of gasoline --
to set alight some long-destroyed tanks for a film shoot. Innocent sensationalism perhaps? But a million people have died in Iraq,
Libya and Syria because the press didn't just report the news, didn't just lie about the news, but they invented and sold the events
that served as pretexts for wars. That is way out of line.
There is no free speech protection for setting fire to a crowded theater! In my book ISIS IS U.S., in fury at the fakery of these
warmongers, I castigate the mainstream media, the MSM, as the МММ: the Mass Murdering Media, as well as the Military-Monetary- Media
complex. Notice how the media only point the finger at the military and industry, but mum's the word about the money masters and
the media manipulators, they who control the nerve system of the zombie nation, military-industrial complex and all?
Political candidates
who tackle the media do so at their peril. Sharmine Narwani is right. These are media combatants, these are war criminals, the lowest
circle of hell in the ranks of crimes.
We have million-dollar penalties for accidental product liability, but the salesmen of genocide
get off scot-free!? 3,000 died on the spot on 9/11, followed by two decades of wars. The key suspect: Netanyahu crony Larry Silverstcin.
His reward: a S3 billion insurance payout - pure profit, as he was only leasing the Towers.
The MSM cover it up, and revile you as
a "conspiracy theorist" if you protest. "Presstitutes" is too light-hearted a word for them. The tragedy is that many social media
agitators for the destruction of Syria were fools, who thought they were being oh so cool.
Remember the Milgram experiment? 1 like
my book covers to be a depiction of the title, an allegory, which led to the most salacious cover art on "Presstitutes" I've ever
dealt with. "Bought Journalists" could have been a covey of journos in a shopping cart, picking up their perks. Light satire blending
to comedy, but this isn't really a funny story. Too many people, including the author, have given their lives.
One nice thing about this book is you get to know a real nice guy. I like Udo. Decent, intelligent, good sense of humor, conscientious,
level-headed. He tells how he fell into this because he was just out of college and needing a job. We all have our compromises and
our confessions to make. Ulfkotte relates the moment when it became too corrupt for him, when politicians offered him €5000 to use
his cover as a journalist to spy and dig up dirt on the private life of their rival. That was too low down and dirty, too criminal
for him, although it seemed to be expected and natural to them. Ulfkotte was the rarest of courageous whistleblowers.
... ... ...
English translation never moved forward." Another curiosity: during the nearly three years Journalists for Hire was "on sale"
but unavailable on Amazon, it garnered only five-star reviews, 24 of them, from customers who wanted to read the book. Then the day
this edition became available, that edition got a 1 -star troll review, virulently attacking the author as a "yellow journalist"
- which happens to mean "warmonger." Weird.
Of course, there could be some mundane explanations for the failure of the first, or rather zero edition. Business failure. Language
barrier. Death of the author -- for a small publisher, a proactive author promoting the book is a necessity. It was spooky, too,
that the only book Tayen Lane seemed to have published before was a non-starter about suicide...
And what if the author's death was a key part of the pattern of suppression? There we go full conspiracy. It's not that incredible,
though. Ulfkotte's last page here is a declaration of war: "This book is the first volume of an explosive three-part series." It's
been alleged that the CIA has a weapon that works by triggering a heart attack. And like the Mafia, their code of silence calls tor
punishing ex-colleagues who took the oath of secrecy and then turned against them, more than mere bystanders like Joe Blogger or
Johnny Publisher.
So I hope I'm lucky to publish this book. Hopefully it will get reviews in the alternative media, or interviews with our translator
or myself. This is the second time I've published a German bestseller. The first was Mathias Broeckers' Conspiracy Theories and Secrets
of 9/11. It didn't turn a profit, but was a very interesting treatment. In the first part of the book he shows that conspiracy -
in the broadest sense, grouping together against outsiders - is one of three basic principles of life and evolution. Darwinians normally
only talk about competition, but the second one is cooperation, and the hybrid of the two is conspiracy. Our body consists of a collective
of cells cooperating and conspiring together against competing organisms! Conspiracy is as common as the air we breathe. Even the
official story of 9/11 is a theory about a conspiracy of 19 hijackers, who weren't even on the passenger lists... Then there is the
conspiracy theory about conspiracy theories, that the CIA purposely turned the term into an epithet to cover up the JFK assassination.
Of course not everything is a conspiracy. You have to remain skeptical, keep your balance and common sense. We need the flexibility
to add new perspectives, and not try to reduce everything to one perspective. Our brains are perfectly capable of this, we just have
to use them. Don't believe what they tell you, if it doesn't stand to reason. On 9/11, three towers fell at free- fall speed, but
only two were hit by airplanes - which were 5,000 times lighter than the steel buildings anyway. Anyone can do the math. The perps
didn't even bother to make it plausible, having the media to cover it up.
When a huge revelation like 9/11 hits, like it did some of us back in 2002, when I published the first "truther" book in English,
it's a big shock. This can make people either deny the new information, or go overboard with it. Sometimes the shock of losing the
mainstream world view is so great that people switch to the reverse explanation for everything. Yet most of life is still banal or
benign. Major criminal political conspiracies like 9/11 require a lot of effort, and are used strategically.
Although 9/11 showed that these people arc capable of almost anything, that doesn't mean they can or will do everything. For instance,
I don't believe in chemtrails, because it doesn't make sense, and the contrails persist mostly on days when there are natural cirrus
clouds in the upper atmosphere. Manipulation is even more common than conspiracy. We all do it to get other people to do things.
Ulfkotte shows that mass media manipulation is business as usual. It is so prevalent that it starts to get into the realm of a matrix,
a wall-to-wall pseudo-reality. The spider army spins its web 24/7. Their thread is a mix of outrages and banalities, bread and circuses.
The formula is clear to see in the major German tabloid Bild. Its readers go for simplified and emotional narratives, like a cheap
novel with themes of love and hate: "The reader's attention is steered away from what's objective- ly important and diverted to what's
trivial." Yes, there IS a sucker bom every minute. We are still just creatures that go too much on impressions and emotions rather
than logic, and the media play on that with sensationalism and simplified images. Sure, our brain has amazing powers, but it can
only focus on one thing at a time. (Luckily, that's at least one more than machines, that have no awareness of anything.)
Simplification, love and hate, enemy images. Our bane as a nation is our bent for political correctness and demonization. We are
the heirs of the Puritans, who had a nasty habit of picking on little old ladies, demonizing them and then burning them at the stake.
Who were the real demons there? Or in the tragedies of Libya and Syria?? When a huge revelation like 9/11 hits, like it did some
of us back in 2002, when I published the first "truther" book in English, it's a big shock. This can make people either deny the
new information, or go overboard with it. Sometimes the shock of losing the mainstream world view is so great that people switch
to the reverse explanation for everything. Yet most of life is still banal or benign. Major criminal political conspiracies like
9/11 require a lot of effort, and are used strategically.
Although 9/11 showed that these people arc capable of almost anything, that doesn't mean they can or will do everything. For instance,
I don't believe in chemtrails, because it doesn't make sense, and the contrails persist mostly on days when there are natural cirrus
clouds in the upper atmosphere. Manipulation is even more common than conspiracy. We all do it to get other people to do things.
Ulfkotte shows that mass media manipulation is business as usual. It is so prevalent that it starts to get into the realm of a matrix,
a wall-to-wall pseudo-reality. The spider army spins its web 24/7. Their thread is a mix of outrages and banalities, bread and circuses.
The formula is clear to see in the major German tabloid Bild. Its readers go for simplified and emotional narratives, like a cheap
novel with themes of love and hate: "The reader's attention is steered away from what's objective- ly important and diverted to what's
trivial." Yes, there IS a sucker bom every minute. We are still just creatures that go too much on impressions and emotions rather
than logic, and the media play on that with sensationalism and simplified images. Sure, our brain has amazing powers, but it can
only focus on one thing at a time. (Luckily, that's at least one more than machines, that have no awareness of anything.)
Simplification, love and hate, enemy images. Our bane as a nation is our bent for political correctness and demonization. We are
the heirs of the Puritans, who had a nasty habit of picking on little old ladies, demonizing them and then burning them at the stake.
Who were the real demons there? Or in the tragedies of Libya and Syria?? We never learn. Hitler with us is as immortal as Satan,
constantly recycled as the evil icon dictator of the day, sometimes complete with moustache. This is how they demonize populism.
Ulfkotte asks, why should populism be unpopular? Lincoln expounded populism when he spoke of a government by and for and of the people.
Each time you spend a $5 greenback with his icon on it, you distribute a piece of populist propaganda! Trump is right to use the
term "witch hunt" against the puritanical attack dogs of impeachment. He wouldn't have needed to ask favors of foreign potentates
if the MSM, the mainstream media, were doing their job and investigating the Bidens. The pot calling the kettle black, because it
sees itself on the politically correct moral high ground. More important, without die color revolution launched by the MSM and the
Obama regime, Ukraine wouldn't have sunk into this cesspool of corruption. Even Trump won't say what die Bidens were really up to:
stirring up war in East Ukraine so they could get their hands on the oil shale fields of the Donbass, or that they are investors
in the illegal occupation of oil fields in the Golan Heights. Can't remember anyone ever fishing in more troubled waters. What about
the suspicions that the Clintons have murdered people, such as Seth Rich, those are just conspiracy theories and not to be investigated
either. Did the DNC kill this whistleblower and blame Putin instead for losing the election? The Mueller report won't say. But people
do get killed. Like JFK, RFK, MLK.
These are not minor matters they are getting away with behind the protective mask of the media which "covers" the news. Surveys
do reflect declining public faith in die mainstream media - except among Democrats. Tell people what they want to hear: a basic marketing
principle. You may have heard of Operation Mockingbird and how the CLA plays our domestic media like a Wurlitzer. Ulfkotte explains
how in Germany, CIA media operations started with the postwar occupation. It's part of the declared intention (most infamously but
not only by Winston Churchill) to destroy the German people, the German identity. Control of the global media is the firm foundation
of the Anglo-American-Zionist empire.
In his parting shot, "What should we do," Ulfkotte sees one simple ray of hope. "Everyone reading this book has the ultimate power
over the journalism I have described here. All we have to do is stop giving our money and our attention to these 'leading media.'
When enough of us stop buying the products offered by these media houses, when we no longer click on their Internet articles and
we switch off their television or radio programs - at some point, these journalists will have to start producing something of value
for their fellow citizens, or they're going to be out of a job. It's that simple." Instead, we can patronize sources like
https://eluxemagazine.com/magazine/honest-news-sites .
They note that, according to Business Insider, 90% of US media are owned by just six corporations, a similar
problem of lockstep media as in Germany. They recommend these "Honest News Sites Way Better Than Mainstream Media."
The Corbett Report
Moon of Alabama
The Anti-Media
Global Research
We Are Change
ProgressivePress.com,
Consortium News
StormCloudsGathering
Truth In Media
Media Roots
21st Century Wire
And The OffOuardian, which incidentally was one of the strongest voices for publishing this suppressed book.
"... The adjectives used in the FAZ to describe Putin had overwhelmingly negative connotations, including: threatening, rough, aggressive, confrontational, anti-westem, power-political, untruthful, cool, calculated, cynical, harsh, abrasive, non-substantive (arguments) and implausible (arguments). ..."
"... The words used to describe Obama had a completely different tone: committed, fanatically welcomed, enthusiastic, conciliatory, praised, hopeful and resolute ..."
"... The former FAZ Washington correspondent Matthias Rub wrote the adulation to US President Bush cited above shortly before the Iraq War began in 2003, in violation of international law. One year later he received the Arthur F. Bums Award for a different article. The Arthur F. Bums Award is presented by Germany's Foreign Minister. So, who selects the winners today? ..."
An interesting undergraduate thesis from Munich put together a list of the adjectives and
adverbs used in select articles about Obama (USA) and Putin (Russia) in the Frankfurter Allgemeine
Zeitung between 2000 and 2012.
The words selected were ones that implied a value judgement in their description of Obama or
Putin. The adjectives used in the FAZ to describe Putin had overwhelmingly negative
connotations, including: threatening, rough, aggressive, confrontational, anti-westem,
power-political, untruthful, cool, calculated, cynical, harsh, abrasive, non-substantive
(arguments) and implausible (arguments).
The words used to describe Obama had a completely different tone: committed, fanatically
welcomed, enthusiastic, conciliatory, praised, hopeful and resolute :' In plain language:
The reporting in the once renowned FAZ newspaper is definitely not neutral, independent,
unbiased nor objective these days. So where is this bias coming from? Does this style of
reporting possibly have anything to do with the closeness that the FAZ's writers have to
certain elites and powerful circles? In the following chapters, we won't only be considering
the FAZ when it comes to this question. We will also look into why the mainstream media doesn't
even want you to imply that they're close to the elite.
Chapter one, scene two: A few years ago, the reporter Thomas Leif painted a rather
conspiratorial picture in the ARD television documentary Strippenzieher und Hinterzimmer
(Puppet Masters and Back Rooms). In it, journalists, ministers and party officials appeared to
all be sitting in the same boat, isolated from the common folk and getting along like
gangbustcrs. Viewers got to see how politics is made in secret meetings behind the scenes. The
film was about a corrupt world of cozy connections.4 What was being shown, however, wasn't a
conspiracy theory.
The film was controversial, because die people being shown in it were the perpetrators. They
thought that this form of corruption was completely normal. The journalists portrayed in the
documentary took it as an affront when they were simply asked about these secret networks
operating in the background.
... ... ...
The manipulation of the readers has been noticeable at the FAZ for many years. Dr. Heinz
Loquai gave a famous speech in 2003 where he said the following about the FAZ:
We learn from the FAZ's Washington correspondents that, among other things, Bush
studies the bible every day, prays regularly and bases his actions on the question, "What
would Jesus do?" The president is a "paragon of modesty and close to his people." There may
be "an arrogant bone or two in Bush's body," but he is "a man of love." His "portion of
missionary fervor" is "softened by statesmanlike prudence," through "patient waiting," the
"natural political talent's decision" has been "expressed." Although Bush may know that he is
not an intellectual, he can rely on "his political instinct, his wisdom and his natural
wit."
So (...) lectured, we can continue to count on the judgement and objectivity of leading
German daily and weekly newspapers' America correspondents! Embedded with the allied troops,
embedded in the political-media network in Washington - what's the difference? 16
The former FAZ Washington correspondent Matthias Rub wrote the adulation to US President
Bush cited above shortly before the Iraq War began in 2003, in violation of international law.
One year later he received the Arthur F. Bums Award for a different article. The Arthur F. Bums
Award is presented by Germany's Foreign Minister. So, who selects the winners today? The
jury includes, for example, the journalists Sabine Christiansen and Stefan Kornclius
(Sflddeutsche Zeitung).17 Keep these names in the mind. We will come across them and their
interesting connections quite often.
" Reporters uncritically echo intel agencies' election claims. Did they learn nothing from
the Iraq war?" that a wrong question to ask. In reality presstitutes are controlled by their
pimps from intelligence agencies. Like was the case in the USSR he MSM has generally abandoned
journalism and became propaganda arm of the State Department and CIA if we are talking about
foreign policy. .
By no stretch of the imagination can NPR or NYT any longer be called a news organizations.
They are propaganda outlets. The book, "Legacy of Ashes," is a good place to start to learn
something about CIA. And
Presstitutes Embedded in the Pay of the CIA by Dr. Udo Ulfkotte describes how CIA controls
journalists.
Notable quotes:
"... Some of our guys told us stuff. We won’t tell you who or why you should trust them, and we won’t show you any evidence that backs them up. The intelligence community is making a bold appeal to its own authority — an authority of which journalists have good reason to be skeptical. ..."
"... Organizations like the Central Intelligence Agency have a history of propagating disinformation to media outlets. Their biases are obvious: They exist not to report the truth but to disrupt foreign adversaries and, at least in theory, to further American interests. Formally they answer to the president and are overseen by Congress, but they also protect their parochial interests like all bureaucracies. ..."
"... Mr. Rall is a political cartoonist, columnist and author of "The Stringer," a graphic novel forthcoming in April. ..."
Reporters uncritically echo intel agencies' election claims. Did they learn nothing from the
Iraq war?
If your mother says she loves you, check it out, goes an old reporter’s saying. What
if the intelligence community says so?
On March 15 the National Intelligence Council declassified an “intelligence community
assessment” titled “Foreign Threats to the 2020 Federal Election.” From a
journalistic standpoint, the section titled “sources of information” is of
interest. It says only that “we considered intelligence reporting and other information
made available to the Intelligence Community as of 31 December 2020.”
To put that in layman’s terms: Some of our guys told us stuff. We won’t tell
you who or why you should trust them, and we won’t show you any evidence that backs them
up. The intelligence community is making a bold appeal to its own authority — an
authority of which journalists have good reason to be skeptical.
Organizations like the Central Intelligence Agency have a history of propagating
disinformation to media outlets. Their biases are obvious: They exist not to report the truth
but to disrupt foreign adversaries and, at least in theory, to further American interests.
Formally they answer to the president and are overseen by Congress, but they also protect their
parochial interests like all bureaucracies. (Speaking of bias, I draw cartoons for Sputnik
News and frequently appear on their radio programs. I have many other clients as well. That may
affect how seriously you take this article.)
Yet many in the media greeted the report with utter credulity. NPR aired a story March 17
titled “Russia’s Efforts at Information Warfare Against the West
Continue”—not “Intelligence Agencies Claim . . .” Reporters Mary Louise
Kelly and Greg Myre framed the report’s election-interference claims as straightforward
fact, analyzed the political implications, and discussed what the U.S. might do to retaliate.
“But the bigger question, Mary Louise, is how can the U.S. stop these major breaches
being carried out by Russia?” Mr. Myre said.
The segment ignored the possibility that the report’s claims might be false or
mistaken. It failed to mention the lack of documented evidence and the anonymous sourcing. NPR
interviewed a single expert: Glenn Gerstell, a former general counsel of the National Security
Agency, identified only as an “official,” who took the report at face value.
Other media outlets were careful to use proper journalistic form, such as “report
says” and “report alleges.” Yet they too presented unsourced allegations as
fact. CNN said the report “confirms what was largely assumed” and called it
“a wholesale repudiation of many false narratives that were pushed by right-wing news
outlets.” CNN didn’t address the questions of anonymous sourcing or
reliability.
While the New York Times allowed that “the declassified report did not explain how the
intelligence community had reached its conclusions,” it bent over backward to give the
benefit of the doubt to the intelligence community: “The officials said they had high
confidence in their conclusions about Mr. Putin’s involvement, suggesting that the
intelligence agencies have developed new ways of gathering information after the extraction of
one of their best Kremlin sources in 2017.”
In May 2004 the Times’s editors published a 1,200-word letter to readers apologizing
for their coverage of Saddam Hussein’s nonexistent weapons of mass destruction. “We
have found a number of instances of coverage that was not as rigorous as it should have
been,” they wrote. “In some cases, information that was controversial then, and
seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged. Looking
back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence
emerged—or failed to emerge.”
You’d think they’d have learned something from the mother of all
intelligence—and journalistic—failures.
Mr. Rall is a political cartoonist, columnist and author of "The Stringer," a graphic
novel forthcoming in April.
Appeared in the April 2, 2021, print edition.
Douglas Wolf
From the 50's on to the fall of the Soviet Union (which the "intelligence agencies
completely missed) the assessments of the Soviet military was WAY overexaggerated to justify
huge budgets for themselves and the military-industrial establishment. When the SU crumbled,
new boogie men had to found! Oh and they missed the plot that became 9-11. WMD's in Iraq
-nope. The list is long of the screwups and politically motivated reports. I say this as
someone who has a long friendship with a CIA officer
Bryan Smith
Asking the media if they have any ethics,, is like asking the executioner why he is an
hatchet man? Because the money is good!
Robert Bridges
50 Intelligence officers, including Brennan, said the Hunter Biden story was Russian
misinformation before the election. They were wrong. Of course, they, and you, won't
apologize to the American people for that blatant attempt to affect the election.
Michael Bomya
Mr. Rall reminds us of the WMD ploy that was the premise for the Iraq war, however he
misses entirely the more recent 2016 Russian collusion narrative. The alleged journalists are
simply extending their Russia story into a tome as thick as Tolstoy's "War and Peace". I
might take the recent intel report to mean that Russia spent $75K on faceyspacey ads in the
run up to the 2020 election, a 25% increase over their spending to install a sleeper agent,
Donald Trump, into the White House.
No Mr. Rall, there are many "news" articles that I stop reading halfway through due to
anonymous sources, a dearth of facts and its' alignment with a Dem narrative. I am not easily
morphed into a consumer of fiction, when I wish to read the news.
David Everson
As long as their agendas coincide they will cooperate. The rest of us are left to sort out
the epistemological sewage we live in.
Bill Schmaltz
"I'm from the government, I'm here to help you". (Be afraid)
"We're the FBI, we're here to pursue justice" (Not always)
"We're the intelligence community, you can trust us". (No, you can't)
Michael Kwedar
Sadly the question "Cui Bono" addresses a lot of what Mr. Rall declaims.
Richard Taylor
The author gives the "journalists" too much credit for being anything other than the
political hacks they are. The intelligence information coincides with their political views
and hence it is gospel. No need for any further review.
Richard Bolin
The issue of Iraq having weapons of mass destruction was not a failure of the intelligence
community at large. That assessment was made by a rogue intelligence component that had the
White House's ear. I was a senior intelligence officer at the time and when I asked my staff
if they were still seeing evidence that Iraq still had a weapons of mass destruction program
the unanimous answer was no.
Marc Jones
Yet the Director of the CIA still went forward, declaring "Slam Dunk!" Was it not his
responsibility to vet the information he was passing on to ensure its accuracy, or was he one
of the rogues? Where do you want to start with these rogue operations and elements? The 1950s
in Latin America and Iran? The 1960s domestically? The 1970s in Asia? The 1980s and 1990s in
the Middle East and again in Latin America? The record is long, ugly and it has a cause.
There is a difference between gathering information and conducting clandestine foreign
intervention.
The former is necessary and relatively benign. The latter leads to embarrassing and
dangerous rogue operations. The United States has a military, Constitutionally established
and maintained for the purpose of conducting violence in the country's behalf. It was the
intent of the founders that would only happen after the members of Congress debated and
agreed there was a need to do so. We need to return to that standard.
Kenneth Wilson
The "journalists" cited all intend to propagate the Democratic Party narrative that it's
only "The Russians" who interfere in US presidential elections. You will not hear anything
about China's involvement from "the intelligence community" or these same journalists.
Also you can be sure that "the intelligence community" won't say publicly anything about
Dominion voting systems. One member of the intel community, former Trump cybersecurity chief
Chris Krebs (who had been fired by Trump) testified to the Senate Homeland security committee
that in no way were the voting machines connected to the Internet. Until Senator Ron Johnson
showed evidence that yes, the machines are in fact connected to the Internet. Thus the vote
counts can be manipulated from anywhere, including from servers abroad.
Madison Bagney
As Reagan famously said, "Trust but verify." Sadly advice that most Americans fail to
do.
ugghhhh the propaganda channel – thesaker – continues unabated
"Putin single-handedly "resurrected" Russia in an amazingly short time"
just LOL @ single-handedly
" Putin turned Russia into the strongest military power on the planet and he completely reshaped the Russian perception
of themselves and of Russia"
strongest? zvezda channel posting youtube videos doesn't make you the strongest military power
completely reshaped? so much that still all the young Russians want to emigrate
"the country which created the best vaccine on the planet "
the best vaccine? only 4% of Russians got vaccinated, that's 6 million out of 144 millions
so much about Russians trusting Putin, LOL
-- -- -
Andrei Raevsky, do you even re-read what BS you write?!
you aren't fooling anyone but a handful of braindead followers you got there on your blog
in the real world – no one gives a shyt about Putin
the West doesn't hate Putin, they just want to loot Russia or get a cut from the loot of Russia.
Russian oligarchs want to loot Russia for themselves without giving a cut/tribute to Western oligarchs.
Putin is a non-issue, a nobody, he just follows orders of the Russian oligarchs.
But there is a real hate @ Putin – that because he is a fake, only a carefully prepared media
image. And you Andrei Raevsky are part of that propaganda effort. Putin is no savior, Putin
is not working for the betterment of Russians or humanity as a whole. He is just a facade for
Russian oligarchs. And that is what we hate . And the more you and the likes of you push
that fake image of Putin, the more the pushback and hate from us.
So go on – continue.
I was a believer in Putin. Then I saw the light. Now I would have no quarrel putting a bullet in
Putin's head. Analyze this!
In truth, the West has a very long list of reasons for which to hate Putin and everything
Russian, but I believe that there is one reason which trumps them all: the western leaders
sincerely believed that they had defeated the USSR in the Cold War (even medals were
made to commemorate this event) and following the collapse of the former superpower and the
coming to power of a clueless, alcoholic puppet, the triumph of the West was total. At least in
appearance. The reality, as always, was much more complicated.
The causes and mechanisms of the collapse of the Soviet Union are not our topic today, so I
will just indicate that I believe that the USSR never "collapsed" but that it was deliberately
destroyed by the CPSU apparatus which decided to break up the country in order for the Party
and Nomenklatura to remain in power, not at the helm of the USSR, but at the helm of the
various ex-Soviet republics. Weak leaders and ideologies which nobody really believes in do not
inspire people to fight for their rulers. This is why the Russian monarchy collapsed, this is
why the masonic democracy of Kerenskii collapsed and this is why the Soviet Union collapsed
(this is also one of the most likely reasons for the final collapse of the US as a state).
Putin, who was not very well known in the West or, for that matter, in Russia, came to power
and immediately reversed Russia's course towards the abyss. First, he dealt with the two most
urgent threats, the oligarchs and the Wahabi insurrection in the Caucasus. Many Russians,
including myself, were absolutely amazed at the speed and determination of his actions. As a
result, Putin suddenly found himself one of the most popular leaders in Russian history.
Initially, the West went into a kind of shock, then through a process reminiscent of the
so-called " Kübler-Ross model " and,
finally, the West settled into a russophobic frenzy not seen since the Nazi regime in Germany
during WWII.
In this sequence, Russia committed two very different types of "crimes" (from the
AngloZionist point of view, of course):
The minor crime of doing what Russia actually did
and The much bigger crime of never asking the Empire for the permission to do so
The West likes to treat the rest of the planet like some kind of junior partner, with very
limited autonomy and almost no real agency (the best example is what the USA did to countries
like Poland or Bulgaria). If and when any such "junior" country wants to do something in its
foreign policy, it absolutely has to ask for permission from its AngloZionist Big Brother. Not
doing so is something akin to sedition and revolt. In the past, many countries were "punished"
for daring to have an opinion or, even more so, for daring to act on it.
It would not be inaccurate to summarize it all by saying that Putin flipped his finger to
the Empire and its leaders. That "crime of crimes" was what really triggered the current
anti-Russian hysteria. Soon, however, the (mostly clueless) leaders of the Empire ran into an
extremely frustrating problem: while the russophobic hysteria did get a lot of traction in the
West, in Russia it created a very powerful blowback because of a typical Putin "judo" move: far
from trying to suppress the anti-Russian propaganda of the West, the Kremlin used its power to
make it widely available (in Russian!) through the Russian media (I wrote about this in some
detail here and here ).
The direct result of this was two fold: first, the CIA/MI6 run "opposition" began to be
strongly associated with the russophobic enemies of Russia and, second, the Russian general
public further rallied around Putin and his unyielding stance. In other words, calling Putin a
dictator and, of course, a "new Hitler", the western PSYOPs gained some limited advantage in
the western public opinion, but totally shot itself in the leg with the Russian public.
I refer to this stage as the " phase one anti-Putin strategic PSYOP ". As for the
outcome of this PSYOP, I would not only say that it almost completely failed, but I think that
it had the exact opposite intended effect inside Russia.
A change of course was urgently needed.
The redirection of US PSYOPs against Putin and Russia
I have to admit that I have a very low opinion of the US intelligence community, including
its analysts. But even the rather dull US "Russia area specialist" eventually figured out that
telling the Russian public opinion that Putin was a "dictator" or a "killer of dissidents" or a
"chemical poisoner of exiles" resulted in a typically Russian mix of laughter and support for
the Kremlin. Something had to be done.
So some smart ass somewhere in some basement came up with the following idea: it makes no
sense to accuse Putin of things which make him popular at home, so let's come up with a new
list of accusations carefully tailored to the Russian public.
Let's call this a " phase two anti-Putin PSYOP operation ".
And this is how the "Putin is in cahoots with" thing began. Specifically, these accusations
were deployed by the US PSYOPs and those in its pay:
Putin is disarming Syria Putin will
sell out the Donbass Putin is a puppet of Israel and, specifically, Netanyahu Putin is a
corrupt traitor to the Russian national interests Putin is allowing Israel to bomb Syria (see
here )
Putin is selling the Siberian riches to China and/or Putin is subjugating Russia to China Putin
is corrupt, weak and even cowardly Putin was defeated by Erdogan in the Nagorno-Karabakh war
The above are the main talking points immediately endorsed and executed by the US strategic
PSYOPs against Russia.
Was it effective?
Yes, to some degree. For one thing, these "anti-Russian PSYOPS reloaded" were immediately
picked up by at least part of what one could call the "internal patriotic opposition" (much of
it very sincerely and without any awareness of being skillfully manipulated). Even more toxic
was the emergence of a rather loud neo-Communist (or, as Ruslan Ostashko often calls them
"emo-Marxist") movement (I personally refer to as a sixth
column ) which began an internal anti-Kremlin propaganda campaign centered on the
following themes:
"All is lost" (
всепропальщики
): that is thesis which says that nothing in Russia is right, everything is either wrong or
evil, the country is collapsing, so is its economy, its science, its military, etc. etc. etc.
This is just a garden variety of defeatism, nothing more. "Nothing was achieved since Putin
came to power": this is a weird one, since it takes an absolutely spectacular amount of mental
gymnastics to not see that Putin literally saved Russia from total destruction. This stance
also completely fails to explain why Putin is so hated by the Empire (if Putin did everything
wrong, like, say Eltsin did, he would be adored in the West, not hated!). All the elections in
Russia were stolen. Here the 5th (CIA/MI6 run) column and 6th column have to agree: according
to both of them, there is absolutely no way most Russians supported Putin for so many years and
there is no way they support him now. And nevermind the fact that the vast majority of polls
show that Putin was, and still is, the most popular political figure in Russia.
Finally, the big SNAFU with the pension reform definitely did not help Putin's ratings, so
he had to take action: he "softened" some of the worst provisions of this reform and,
eventually, he successfully sidelined some of the worst Atlantic Integrationists, including
Medvedev himself.
Sadly, some putatively pro-Russian websites, blogs and individuals showed their true face
when they jumped on the bandwagon of this 2nd strategic PSYOP campaign, probably with the hope
to either become more noticed, or get some funding, or both. Hence, all the nonsense about
Russia and Israel working together or Putin "selling out" we have seen so many times recently.
The worst thing here is that these websites, blogs and individuals have seriously misled and
distressed some of the best real friends of Russia in the West.
None of these guys ever address a very simple question: if Putin is such a sellout, and if
all is lost, why does the AngloZionist Empire hate Putin so much? In almost 1000 years of
warfare (spiritual, cultural, political, economic and military) against Russia, the leaders of
the West have always hated real Russian patriots and they have always loved the (alas, many)
traitors to Russia. And now, they hate Putin because he is such a terrible leader?
This makes absolutely no sense.
Conclusion: is a war inevitable now?
The US/NATO don't engage in strategic PYSOPs just because they like or dislike somebody. The
main purpose of such PSYOPs is to break the other side's will to resist . This was also
the main objective of both (phase one and phase two) anti-Putin PSYOPs. I am happy to report
that both phases of these PYSOPs failed. The danger here is that these failures have failed to
convince the leaders of the Empire of the need to urgently change course and accept the
"Russian reality", even if they don't like it.
Ever since "Biden" (the "collective Biden", of course, not the potted plant) Administration
(illegally) seized power, what we saw was a sharp escalation of anti-Russian statements. Hence,
the latest " uhu, he is a killer " -- this was no mistake by a senile mind, this was a
carefully prepared
declaration. Even worse, the Empire has not limited itself to just words, it also did some
important "body moves" to signal its determination to seek even further confrontation with
Russia:
There has been a lot of sabre-rattling coming from the West, mostly some rather
ill-advsied (or even outright stupid) military maneuvers near/along the Russian border. As I
have explained it a billion times, these maneuvers are self-defeating from a military point of
view (the closer to the Russian border, the more dangerous for the western military
force). Politically, however, they are extremely provocative and, therefore, dangerous. The
vast majority of Russian analysts do not believe that the US/NATO will openly attack Russia, if
only because that would be suicidal (the current military balance in Europe is strongly in
Russia's favor, even without using hypersonic weapons). What many of them now fear is that
"Biden" will unleash the Ukronazi forces against the Donbass, thereby "punishing" both the
Ukraine and Russia (the former for its role in the US presidential campaign). I tend to agree
with both of these statements.
At the end of the day, the AngloZionist Empire was always racist at its core, and that
empire is still racist : for its leaders, the Ukrainian people are just cannon fodder, an
irrelevant third rate nation with no agency which has outlived its utility (US analysts do
understand that the US plan for the Ukraine has ended in yet another spectacular faceplant such
delusional plans always end up with, even if they don't say so publicly). So why not launch
these people into a suicidal war against not only the LDNR but also Russia herself? Sure,
Russia will quickly and decisively win the military war, but politically it will be a PR
disaster for Russia as the "democratic West" will always blame Russia, even when she clearly
did not attack first (as was the case in 08.08.08, most recently).
I have already written about
the absolutely disastrous situation of the Ukraine three weeks ago so I won't repeat it
all here, I will just say that since that day things have gotten even much worse: suffice to
say that the Ukraine has moved a lot of heavy armor to the line of contact while the regime in
Kiev has now banned the import of Russian toilet paper (which tells you what the ruling gang
thinks of as important and much needed measures). While it is true that the Ukraine has become
a totally failed state since the Neo-Nazi coup, there is now a clear acceleration of the
collapse of not only the regime or state, but of the country as a whole. Ukraine is falling
apart so fast that one could start an entire website tracking only all this developing horror,
not day by day, but, hour by hour. Suffice to say that "Ze" has turned out to be even worse
than Poroshenko. The only thing Poroshenko did which "Ze" has not (yet!) is to start a war.
Other than that, the rest of what he did (by action or inaction) can only be qualified as "more
of the same, only worse".
Can a war be prevented?
I don't know. Putin gave the Ukronazis a very stern warning (" grave consequences for Ukraine's statehood as such ").
I don't believe for one second that anybody in power in Kiev gives a damn about the Ukraine or
the Ukrainian statehood, but they are smart enough to realize that a Russian counter-attack in
defense of the LDNR and, even more so, Crimea, might include precision "counter-leadership"
strikes with advanced missiles. The Ukronazi leaders would be well-advised to realize that they
all have a crosshair painted on their heads. They might also think about this: what happened to
every single Wahabi gang leader in Chechnya since the end of the 2nd Chechen war? (hint: they
were all found and executed). Will that be enough to stop them?
Maybe. Let's hope so.
But we must now keep in mind that for the foreseeable future there are only two options left
for the Ukraine: " a horrible ending or a horror without end " (Russian
expression).
The best scenario for the people of the Ukraine would be a (hopefully
relatively peaceful) breakup of the country
into manageable parts . The worst option would definitely be a full-scale war against
Russia.
Judging by the rhetoric coming out of Kiev these days, most Ukrainian politicians are firmly
behind option #2, especially since that is also the only option acceptable to their overseas
masters. The Ukrainians have also adopted a new military doctrine (they call it a "military
security strategy of Ukraine") which declares Russia the aggressor state and military adversary
of the Ukraine (see here for a machine translation of the official text).
This might be the reason why Merkel and Macron recently had a videoconference with Putin
("Ze" was not invited): Putin might be trying to convince Merkel and Macron that such a war
would be a disaster for Europe. In the meantime, Russia is rapidly reinforcing her forces along
the Ukrainian border, including in Crimea.
But all these measures can only deter a regime which has no agency. The outcome shall be
decided in Washington DC, not Kiev. I am afraid that the traditional sense of total impunity of
US political leaders will, once again, give them a sense of very little risk (for them
personally or for the USA) in triggering a war in the Ukraine. The latest news on the
US-Ukrainian front is the delivery by the USN of 350 tonnes of military equipment in Odessa.
Not enough to be militarily significant, but more than enough to further egg on the regime in
Kiev to an attack on the Donbass and/or Crimea.
In fact, I would not even put it past "Biden" to launch an attack on Iran while the world
watches the Ukraine and Russia go to war. After all, the other country whose geostrategic
position has been severely degraded since Russia moved her forces to Syria is Israel, the one
country which all US politicians will serve faithfully and irrespective of any costs (including
human costs for the USA). The Israelis have been demanding a war on Iran since at least 2007,
and it would be very naive to hope that they won't eventually get their way. Last, but not
least, there is the crisis which Blinken's condescending chutzpah triggered with China which,
so far, has resulted in an economic war only, but which might also escalate at any moment,
especially considering all the many recent anti-Chinese provocations by the US Navy.
Right now the weather in the eastern Ukraine is not conducive to offensive military
operations. The snow is still melting, creating very difficult and muddy road conditions
(called " rasputitsa " in Russian) which greatly inhibit the movement of forces and
troops. These conditions will, however, change with the warmer season coming, at which point
the Ukronazi forces will be ideally poised for an attack.
In other words, barring some major development, we might be only weeks away from a major
war.
We must not forget President Putin's outrageous opinion piece in the New York Times of
September 11th 2013: delivered at the same time as he had the impertinence to propose
the voluntary relinquishment of all chemical weapons by Syria -- thwarting the traditional
wholesale bombing campaign that the "Allies" were working up to. This was an unforgivable
affront to the USA -- and to Obama in particular; who had only just invoked his "red line".
It made him look ridiculous -- and a man in his position can't afford to look ridiculous.
This behaviour by Mr. Putin has never been forgotten or forgiven and it will be quite a
while before the New York Times prints another oped by him.
Russia was "back": in 2013 Russia stopped the planned US/NATO attack on Syria (the
pretext here was Syrian chemical weapons). In 2014 Russia gave her support to the
Novorussian uprising against the Ukronazi regime in Kiev and, in the same year, Russia also
used her military to make it possible for the local population to vote on a referendum to
join Russia. Finally, in 2015, Russia stunned the West with an extremely effective military
intervention in Syria.
Don't forget what Russia did the Georgia's American trained and supplied military in
2009.
This was an unforgivable affront to the USA -- and to Obama in particular; who had only
just invoked his "red line". It made him look ridiculous -- and a man in his position can't
afford to look ridiculous.
Excellent observation.
To deal with contemporary western elites is, to a great extent, to deal with Satan
himself. The devil- and presumably, his minions- does not mind confrontation or opposition
anywhere as much as he hates being the object of derision.
"The devil the prowde spirite cannot endure to be mocked." -- St. Thomas More
"why does the AngloZionist Empire hate Putin so much?"
I have an explanation, but that would tend to get me labelled a "sixth columnist".
It is obvious to anyone who does not believe that Putin is the Saviour Of Russia, but just
a neoliberal politician who is moderately better than Yeltsin, and whose real alternatives,
not Quislings like Navalny but real alternatives, are all far more nationalist and not
beholden to international capital than he is. Since the 90s are now over, and the attempt to
destroy Russia has failed, how does one ensure that the country does not become even stronger
and, crucially, more assertive?
One possible answer is interesting: keep demonising the man in power, *even though you
know that demonising him hardens support behind him*. Especially since it hardens support
behind him. As long as you keep attacking him, the Russian people support him more, making it
less likely for someone who would be more nationalist and less neoliberal to take charge.
I've come to think that the whole "Putin the Devil" thing is pushed so hard by the
corporate-communist-left (aside: I do struggle these days with what to call them) mostly as a
distraction. "Hey! Look over there! A BAD MAN!" (and pay no mind to what I'm doing over here,
flooding the country with replacements, thrashing the constitution, coming up with vaccine
passports and enabling a totalitarian technocracy).
In fact, it's a necessary hallmark of ALL totalitarian leftist regimes to have a huge
"outside enemy" who threatens the very existence of the state and is used to distract from
domestic troubles. Try to find a single totalitarian state without one.
So the U.S. has everything to gain and little to lose (Biden gov thinks anyways) by
goading Ukraine into "taking back Crimea." The U.S. is committed to fight that war down the
very last Ukrainian.
Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba announced this week that the country's National
Security and Defense Council had approved a strategy that is aimed at retaking Crimea and
reintegrating the strategically important peninsula.
Christopher Caldwell delivered what I thought was a good assessment of Putin in 2017, and
this excellent piece by The Saker complements and updates it for me. I think Putin is even
more reviled than ever by the U.S. Dems, because Putin = a national-sovereignty proponent =
Trump.
I play online chess -- speedy games, and so I have a lot of experience with players from
Russia and Ukraine. They tend to favor what chess players call "quiet moves." Is this a
manner of thought, a philosophy, that can be extrapolated to government? (U.S. players, by
contrast, tend to be more impetuous and impulsive in their chess style.)
The World Health Organization recently published its report on the
origin of the SARS-CoV-2 virus which has caused the Covid-19 pandemic. Most scientist agree
that the virus is of zoonotic origin and not a human construct or an accidental laboratory
escape. But the U.S. wants to put pressure on China and advised the Director General of the
WHO, Tedros Adhanom, to keep the focus on China potential culpability. He acted accordingly
when he
remarked on his agency's report:
Although the team has concluded that a laboratory leak is the least likely hypothesis, this
requires further investigation, potentially with additional missions involving specialist
experts, which I am ready to deploy.
The Governments of Australia, Canada, Czechia, Denmark, Estonia, Israel, Japan, Latvia,
Lithuania, Norway, the Republic of Korea, Slovenia, the United Kingdom, and the United
States of America remain steadfast in our commitment to working with the World Health
Organization (WHO), international experts who have a vital mission, and the global
community to understand the origins of this pandemic in order to improve our collective
global health security and response. Together, we support a transparent and independent
analysis and evaluation, free from interference and undue influence, of the origins of the
COVID-19 pandemic. In this regard, we join in expressing shared concerns regarding the
recent WHO-convened study in China, while at the same time reinforcing the importance of
working together toward the development and use of a swift, effective, transparent,
science-based, and independent process for international evaluations of such outbreaks of
unknown origin in the future.
The most interesting with the above statement is the list of U.S. allied countries which
declined to support it,
Most core EU countries, especially France, Spain, Italy and Germany, are missing from it.
As is the Five-Eyes member New Zealand. India, a U.S. ally in the anti-Chinese Quad
initiative, also did not sign. This list of signatories of the Joint Statement is an
astonishingly meager result for a U.S. 'joint' initiative. It is unprecedented. It is a sign
that something has cracked and that the world will never be the same.
The first months of he Biden administration saw a rupture in the global system. First
Russia admonished the EU for its hypocritical criticism of internal Russian issues. Biden
followed up by calling Putin a 'killer'. Then the Chinese foreign minister told the Biden
administration
to shut the fuck up about internal Chinese issues. Soon thereafter Russia's and China's
foreign ministers met and agreed to deepen their alliance and to shun the U.S. dollar. Then
China's foreign minister went on a wider Middle East tour. There he reminded U.S. allies of
their
sovereignty :
Wang said that expected goals had been achieved with regard to a five-point initiative on
achieving security and stability in the Middle East, which was proposed during the visit.
"China supports countries in the region to stay impervious to external pressure and
interference, to independently explore development paths suited to its regional realities
," Wang said, adding that the countries should " break free from the shadows of big-power
geopolitical rivalry and resolve regional conflicts and differences as masters of the
region ."
Suffice to say, the China-Iran pact deeply is embedded within a new matrix Beijing hopes to
create with the Arab states of the Persian Gulf and Iran. The pact forms part of a new
narrative on regional security and stability.
Countries in Asia and further afield are closely watching the development of this
alternative international order, led by Moscow and Beijing. And they can also recognise the
signs of increasing US economic and political decline.
It is a new kind of Cold War, but not one based on ideology like the first incarnation.
It is a war for international legitimacy, a struggle for hearts and minds and money in the
very large part of the world not aligned to the US or NATO.
The US and its allies will continue to operate under their narrative, while Russia and
China will push their competing narrative. This was made crystal clear over these past few
dramatic days of major power diplomacy.
The global balance of power is shifting, and for many nations, the smart money might be
on Russia and China now.
The obvious U.S. countermove to the Russian-Chinese initiative is to unite its allies in a
new Cold War against Russia and China. But as the Joint Statement above shows most of those
allies do not want to follow that path. China is a too good customer to be shunned. Talk of
human rights in other countries might play well with the local electorate but what counts in
the end is the business.
Even some U.S. companies can see that the hostile path the Biden administration has
followed will only be to their detriment. Some are asking the Biden gang to
tone it down :
[Boeing] Chief Executive Dave Calhoun told an online business forum he believed a major
aircraft subsidy dispute with Europe could be resolved after 16 years of wrangling at the
World Trade Organization, but contrasted this with the outlook on China.
"I think politically (China) is more difficult for this administration and it was for
the last administration. But we still have to trade with our largest partner in the world:
China," he told the U.S. Chamber of Commerce Aviation Summit.
Noting multiple disputes, he added: " I am hoping we can sort of separate intellectual
property, human rights and other things from trade and continue to encourage a free trade
environment between these two economic juggernauts. ... We cannot afford to be locked out
of that market. Our competitor will jump right in."
Before its 737 MAX debacle Boeing was the biggest U.S. exporter and China was its biggest
customer. The MAX has yet to be re-certified in China. If Washington keeps the hostile tone
against China Boeing will lose out and Europe's Airbus will make a killing.
Biden announced that "America is back" only to be told that it is no longer needed in the
oversized role that it played before. Should Washington not be able to accept that it can no
play 'unilateral' but will have to follow the real rules of international law we might be in
for some
interesting times :
Question: Finally, are you concerned that deteriorating international tensions could lead
to war?
Glenn Diesen: Yes, we should all be concerned. Tensions keep escalating and there are
increasing conflicts that could spark a major war. A war could break out over Syria,
Ukraine, the Black Sea, the Arctic, the South China Sea and other regions.
What makes all of these conflicts dangerous is that they are informed by a
winner-takes-all logic. Wishful thinking or active push towards a collapse of Russia,
China, the EU or the U.S. is also an indication of the winner-takes-all mentality. Under
these conditions, the large powers are more prepared to accept greater risks at a time when
the international system is transforming . The rhetoric of upholding liberal democratic
values also has clear zero-sum undertones as it implies that Russia and China must accept
the moral authority of the West and commit to unilateral concessions.
The rapidly shifting international distribution of power creates problems that can only
be resolved with real diplomacy. The great powers must recognize competing national
interests, followed by efforts to reach compromises and find common solutions.
Russia's president Vladimir Putin has repeatedly asked
for a summit of leaders of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council:
Putin argued that the countries that created a new global order after World War II should
cooperate to solve today's problems.
"The founder countries of the United Nations, the five states that hold special
responsibility to save civilisation, can and must be an example," he said at the sombre
memorial ceremony.
The meeting would "play a great role in searching for collective answers to modern
challenges and threats," Putin said, adding that Russia was "ready for such a serious
conversation."
Such a summit would be a chance to work on a new global system that avoids unilateralism
and block mentality. As the U.S. is now learning that its allies are not willing to follow
its anti-China and anti-Russia policies it might be willing to negotiate over a new
international system.
But as long as Washington is unable to recognize its own decline a violent attempt to
solve the issue once and for all will become more likely.
Posted by b on April 1, 2021 at 17:52 UTC |
Permalink
Very thought provoking b, I wish time off brought me back firing on all cylinders like
this!
No doubt vk will chime in here better than I but it surely cannot be a matter of "if
America decides". There are historical forces at work in this financialized phase of late
capitalism that are not grasped by the US leadership, let alone factored into intelligent
policy debates. Biden is an arch-lobbyist for the vested interests which compel the US's
unilateral and interventionist foreign policy. I'm quite sure he is incapable of 'deciding'
anything (not just mentally but institutionally). But the underlying dynamic of
world-historical change is beyond him and his whole country. The die was cast long ago when
the Soviet Union fell and the US couldn't help themselves. Junkies for unilateralism since
1989, they will keep shooting up until they OD (Boeing notwithstanding...). I suspect they
will end up like the schizoid UK, psychologically unable to accept increasing and humiliating
losses of empire until it hits the bottom of the dustbin of History.
The Dems and Republicans are two heads of the same hydra, voting for one or the other is a
charade played on the American people and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The US is
a state run for the benefit of the economic elite that owns the media and from which the
political elite is chosen/sponsored and which is aligned with the military elite. Presidents
will come and go, policy pretty much stays the same, its the same as CEOs of corporations -
if they don't follow profit maximization they will be booted out.
The US elites all went to the same schools (or military academy) where they were
inculcated with "American Exceptionalism" and the need for "America to be the Global
Policeman", ending up with mediocrities such as Blinken and Pompeo that thrash around as the
world moves to multipolarity and the US becomes just another important nation. It will take
at least decades for the US elite to get their heads around this, the British still haven't
as seen by their wasting of resources on showy projects such as the two useless aircraft
carriers (know as "targets" by submariners and missile batteries) to assuage its "size"
envy.
Voting for either imperialist party in the US will make little difference in policy toward
Ukraine or in most any foreign policy situation. Only the timing of a given aggression is
changed. I didn't vote at all in the last election because it is just obvious that we are
screwed now. The menagerie of imperialist monkeys in Biden's government is bound to do
something in the spirit of maximum hubris. It will require only one more chest-swelling act
of bellicose madness, something "kinetic" and terminally stupid.
Roger @28 said;"The Dems and Republicans are two heads of the same hydra, voting for one
or the other is a charade played on the American people and is irrelevant to the discussion
at hand. The US is a state run for the benefit of the economic elite that owns the media and
from which the political elite is chosen/sponsored and which is aligned with the military
elite. Presidents will come and go, policy pretty much stays the same, its the same as CEOs
of corporations - if they don't follow profit maximization they will be booted out."
Absolutely.
@ 22 should read the above, and check out Gazza @ 24, to see who has who surrounded...
Oh, and quit dreaming about Trump, liberal, him and Biden work for the same people..
Apparently it was "You pissed on my rug!". I guess if they update that book and article,
they'll include Trump characterizing Justin as "weak and dishonest" - which I would say,
based on his 7 years as PM, is blunt but accurate.
I think you're right that any US concessions are just a reprieve. That
non-agreement-capable thing. Freeland and Justin don't care, they're looking forward to
getting rich after leaving office, like the Clintons, Obama, etc. as a reward for their
service to plutocracy.
William Gruff @19, Hoarsewhisperer @16, agreed. That, it seems to me is the root of the
problem. Our politicians are for sale to the highest bidders. It's no longer democracy, but
full-fledged plutocracy with a veneer of "democracy" that's visibly cracked and flaking off
to anyone but the willfully blind.
solo @38, good point. Saudi Arabia also sided with China on Xinjiang:
Importantly, the Crown Prince said Saudi Arabia 'firmly supports China's legitimate
position on the issues related to Xinjiang and Hong Kong, opposes interfering in China's
internal affairs under any pretext, and rejects the attempt by certain parties to sow
dissension between China and the Islamic world.'
Plainly put, Saudi Arabia has undercut the current US campaign against China regarding
Xinjiang. It is a snub to the Biden administration.
One thing which separates Russia and China from Western 'thinking' is that the People's
Government in each country has rules in place to prevent Billionaires from buying/owning
politicians.
To be fair, the neocon's feel that way about everyone - they embrace the role of paranoid
imperialist because that's a relatively accessible way to get funded in the DC policy world.
The striking thing is the hubris - they're just going to fight everyone all at the same time
and it will somehow be okay in the end, no cost to them.
"To be fair, the neocon's feel that way about everyone"
Did you consider the article linked to @59?
Michael Hudson quote from the article, for your consideration.
(take it or leave it)
The Americans want war. The people that Biden has appointed have an emotional hatred of
Russia. I've spoken to government people who are close to the Democratic Party, and they've
told me that there's a pathological emotional desire for war with Russia, largely stemming
from the fact that the Tzars were anti-Semitic and there's still the hatred about their
ancestors: "Look what they did to my great-grandfather." And so they're willing to back the
Nazis, back the anti-Semites in Ukraine. They're willing to back today's anti-Semites all
over the world as long as they're getting back at this emotional focus on a kind of post
19th-century economy.
"...And this is because Zbig [Brezinski] is a Polish aristocrat with lost family estate on
outskirts of Lvov. Any fool knows emigre info is useless and emigre aristocrat most useless
of all."
Brezinski's keyboard was hacked before age 3; its output foreordained by unknown sources
he mis-owned as "self". A well-oiled robot producing brilliant compositions of high-quality,
effective communication promoting madness and contagious ruin of non-aristos.
Ghost Ship: That same Nazi scum that the OSS/CIA brought into the US after WW2 was also
involved in the assassinations of JFK, MLK, RFK, and probably Malcolm X.
In the last several years the CIA and other intel agencies have cemented their control of
the US that is now a fascist rogue state that is marching the American people into a war with
peer powers. As usual the American people will believe US elites telling them the war is
started by a foreign power. Americans around me are blind as bats. And they think I'm dumb
for not taking experimental mRNA vaccines.
@ptb (63) "...they're just going to fight everyone all at the same time and it will
somehow be okay in the end, no cost to them."
Correct, there will be no personal physical cost to them, as in getting maimed or killed
in a war. But on the other side of the ledger, the profits that flow to the MIC are massive,
and many, if not most of the neocons are in some way connected to it, either by consultancy,
think-tank positions, corporate board positions, TV sinecures, etc. In other words, they are
cashing in big-time on their political views and policy recommendations.
@ptb (63) "...they're just going to fight everyone all at the same time and it will
somehow be okay in the end, no cost to them."
Correct, there will be no personal physical cost to them, as in getting maimed or killed
in a war. But on the other side of the ledger, the profits that flow to the MIC are massive,
and many, if not most of the neocons are in some way connected to it, either by consultancy,
think-tank positions, corporate board positions, TV sinecures, etc. In other words, they are
cashing in big-time on their political views and policy recommendations.
Military actions might be suicidal for Ukraine. But this exactly what the USA wants in order
to achieve its geopolitical objectives.
The danger for Ukraine in Georgia war scenario.
Notable quotes:
"... Yesterday (Ist April) the Russians stopped sending Gas via Ukraine. ..."
"... A hot war in eastern Ukraine/Crimea appears unlikely. Ukraine no doubt perceives that such a conflict means almost certain defeat. Military defeat would likely raise existential issues for Ukraine and its leadership, given the present adverse economic conditions. The Ukrainian leadership has very little to gain by waging a war and has much to lose. ..."
"... Assuming the truth of reports of a Russian military buildup along its relevant borders, such a buildup appears to be more of a warning to Kiev - and to the U.S. - not to make any rash moves. ..."
Cute /funny, but for me this points to the script that the "west" has laid out before
hand: Washington has dialed up an attack by Ukraine, has been concentrating ukrop forces
along the line of contact, and has kept its media muzzled, total media blackout, until the
Russians respond. Then let loose with the media to make it appear that the Russians are
threatening Ukraine. And per the 08/08/08 Georgia attack, if they push the button and attack
donbass, and the Russians respond, blame it on Russian aggression. Russia attacks!! Russian
aggression!! Who's to know it isn't so? They'll all be singing from the same hymn sheet. Not
like in '08 when the EU was still semi autonomous. If Washington doesn't order an attack,
then they can still point to Russia massing troops and score a propaganda victory as Russia
is intimidating poor Ukraine. Russian aggression!! And "sell" more weapons to Ukraine and
move more "advisors" in. The cost? Who cares? They'll just keep the printing press
rolling.
"Vyacheslav Nikonov: ...How dangerous is the situation in Ukraine in light of the ongoing
US arms deliveries, the decisions adopted in the Verkhovna Rada on Tuesday, and the
statements made by the Ukrainian military, who are openly speaking about a war? Where do we
stand on the Ukrainian front?
Sergey Lavrov: There is much speculation about the documents that the Rada passed and
that President Zelensky signed. To what extent does this reflect real politics? Is it
consistent with the objective of resolving President Zelensky's domestic problem of
declining ratings?
I'm not sure what this is: a bluff or concrete plans.
According to the information published in the media, the military, for the most part, is
aware of the damage that any action to unleash a hot conflict might bring.
I very much hope this will not be fomented by the politicians, who, in turn, will be
fomented by the US-led West. ...
Like President Vladimir Putin said not long ago; but these words are still relevant,
– those who try to unleash a new war in Donbass will destroy Ukraine. "
Yesterday (Ist April) the Russians stopped sending Gas via Ukraine.
The day before Zelensky "invited" NATO into Ukraine for military exercises. In the face of the amassing of Russian troops near Ukraine's borders, setting up joint
exercises involving Ukraine Army and Allied forces, including joint air patrols with NATO
aviation in Ukraine's airspace, will help stabilize the security situation in the region,
Mashovets has told his counterpart.
UNIAN:
https://www.unian.info/politics/donbas-kyiv-invites-nato-to-hold-joint-military-drills-11374195.html
(Disclaimer; I don't know much about this site)
(The day before that there was a top level meeting of NATO "to discuss the situation in
Ukraine, which might have provoked/told Zelnsky to do the former).
Talking of provocation; here is a "twit" showing a Polish, it looks like fishing vessel,
ramming a supply ship to NordStream II pipe layers. Gangster warfare? https://twitter.com/I30mki/status/1377821400325480451
Although b says that the "Russian threat" is overdone, this buildup is certainly part of
the problem as the US wants NATO in Ukraine. Therefore the more the threat is hyped the more
they can use it to "justify" changing the facts on the ground.
One side observation is that Biden is totally absent. This situation is being run by the
US High Command (Milley et al) and others who always want moar war for the cash it brings
in. The US Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Chairman of the JCS, and National
Security Advisor have all had phone calls with their Ukrainian counterparts over the past
three days, and General Milley spoke with General Gerasimov.
Ukraine - and the West's - main problem with Russia over the Donbass is that Russia is NOT
a party to the Minsk agreement. With both France and Germany, it is a guarantor.
The signatures on the Minsk document are that of Ukraine and the so-called republics.
Ukraine can create as many laws stating it is in an 'International armed conflict' with
Russia as it likes, it does not alter the fact that no such conflict exists, nor has it been
brought to the Security Council.
But the Minsk accord HAS been approved by the Security Council.
"On March 29, the Ukrainian Parliament (Verkhovna Rada) adopted a draft of so-called
resolution on the situation in Donbass. It seems that there is noting new in such a
document, however, it puts at stake Kiev's obligation on implementation of the Minsk
Agreement...
Such a document is not the first to be adopted in Ukraine in the last years. However,
this draft has a specific feature. It is for the first time that Ukrainian Rada adopted the
draft statement, which says that the war in Eastern Ukraine is a Russian-Ukrainian armed
conflict.
Previously, the phrase "aggression of the Russian Federation against Ukraine" was used
in Kiev's official documents. Today, the war in Donbass was designated as an international
armed conflict, that is, war.
Such a definition has significant juridical impact. This statement completely blocks
Kiev's implementation of the Minsk Agreements. Paragraph 2 of the Package of Measures
clearly defines that the parties to the conflict are Kiev on the one hand, Donetsk People's
Republic and Lugansk People's Republic (LDPR) on the other.
Today the Ukrainian Parliament officially declared, at the highest level, that the
parties to the conflict are Ukraine and Russia.
The resolution ensures the immediate forwarding of the text of this statement to the
national governments and parliaments of foreign states, international organizations and
their parliamentary assemblies."
The propaganda may never change but that doesn't mean the events can't be different this
time. There's video of large amounts of heavy weapons heading to the border.
A few weeks ago the US sent 350 tonnes of armoured humvees etc to Odessa. Then On 23rd
March video shows Ukraine sending trainloads of tanks etc. On 24th March Kiev passed a decree
claiming a right to retake Crimea. It's always said so but this seemed to really ratchet up
the rhetoric as it virtually commits the government to trying to retake Crimea by force.
Several videos from 29th March show different Russian trains with scores of tanks etc
heading across the Kerch bridge to Crimea, and to the Donbas border. Plus other videos of
numerous helicopters & endlessly long lines of tanks & armoured vehicles on roads as
well.
This is a buildup not seen since the hit war days of 2014.
Meanwhile a NATO Fleet enters the Black Sea for exercises with Ukraine.
A hot war in eastern Ukraine/Crimea appears unlikely. Ukraine no doubt perceives that
such a conflict means almost certain defeat. Military defeat would likely raise existential
issues for Ukraine and its leadership, given the present adverse economic conditions. The
Ukrainian leadership has very little to gain by waging a war and has much to lose.
Assuming the truth of reports of a Russian military buildup along its relevant
borders, such a buildup appears to be more of a warning to Kiev - and to the U.S. - not to
make any rash moves.
True, there is a possibility of war. Hot heads in Kiev and Washington appear always to
want war. But insofar as Washington is concerned, its domestic agenda presently appears to
hold far greater sway than does a failing outpost on the periphery of Washington's
influence.
At this juncture, then, the possibility of a significant conflict seems low by
comparison.
You are completely ignoring the overall picture. The US wants to stop Nordstream 2 and
roping NATO into a war situation with NATO would make it almost impossible to continue.
Already physical provocation is being used against the pipe-laying ships (see Stonebird's
post (2))
Personally I blame all this shit on the Nazi scum moved to the United States by Washington
after World War 2 and "weaponised". Desperate to destroy Russia and no doubt keen to acquire
Lebensraum, these Hitler fanboys and their handlers in Washington are doing everything they
can to apply Hitler's racial beliefs to Russia and make them seem like others when Russians
are as European as Hungarians, the British and the Irish and certainly more European than
Americans, Canadians and Australians. This is to make war with Russia more acceptable among
Europeans. Perhaps the Hitler fanboys in Washington need to work to improve their understand
of the Napoleonic Wars and World War 2 .
As Field Marshall Montgomery (a decent but fallible and somewhat egotistical British general)
said in 1959:
Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: "Do not march on Moscow". Various people have
tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule. I do not know
whether your Lordships will know Rule 2 of war. It is: "Do not go fighting with your land
armies in China". It is a vast country, with no clearly defined objectives.
A few years later he repeated his Rules of War and even claimed ownership for himself:
The United States has broken the second rule of war. That is: don't go fighting with your
land army on the mainland in Asia. Rule One is, don't march on Moscow. I developed those
two rules myself.
They are rules that the Hitler Fanboys and "Lost China" morons in Washington should have
tattooed on their foreheads along with a free prefrontal lobotomy.
BTW, who are the more civilised:
The use of the procedure increased dramatically from the early 1940s and into the 1950s; by
1951, almost 20,000 lobotomies had been performed in the United States and proportionally
more in the United Kingdom. The majority of lobotomies were performed on women; a 1951
study of American hospitals found nearly 60% of lobotomy patients were women; limited data
shows 74% of lobotomies in Ontario from 1948–1952 were performed on women. From the
1950s onward, lobotomy began to be abandoned, first in the Soviet Union and Europe.
.
The idea of "weaponized immigration" in the sense of bringing in immigrant hostile to their
source state and using them to overthrow their source state was applied by Washington and
largely publicized by Yasha Levine.
As some of us are superannuated, it is good to know the views of
younger generation . Top general of Ukraine addressed the deputies of Verkhovna Rada
(parliament), declared readiness of Ukrainian army to attack with the aim of "re-integrating
the temporarily not-under-control territories", but then he somberly added the perspective of
huge civilian casualties, and then started to described Russian forces currently to the
north, east and the south of Ukraine. That was taking some time, so Anna Kolesnik, at 26 one
of the youngest deputies of the ruling party, texted "We are listening to Khomchak. We need
to get out from this country."
Looks like Zelensky signed a document or Decree No. 117/2021 the other day, to recapture
the Donbas and Crimea which could also be seen as a declaration of war towards Russia, more
in the link below:
Look at the videos of massive troop build ups. Also the conscription in both the Donbas
republics & Ukraine Donetsk & Lugansk militia veterans of 2014/15 returning from
Russia to region.
To say nothing is going to happen this time seems wishful thinking.
Of course US and European concern about Russian military build-up along Russia's borders
with European nations serves a purpose: justifying even more NATO military build-up along the
other side of the Russian border which in turn generates profit for US, British and EU arms
corporations and their shareholders in the banking and finance industries (and politics as
well), and helps NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg to think he is important.
Several nations that have borders with Russia probably need the money that NATO soldiers
might spend (mostly on entertainment like watching pole-dancing performers) while stationed
on their territories. Latvia and Lithuania among others haven't done too well since joining
the EU with something like 18 - 20% of their people living in poverty and many families
dependent on remittances sent by their relatives working overseas. Instead of their resident
Russian-speaking population being a bridge between their economies and the Russian economy,
these countries prefer to deny their Russian-speaking minorities social welfare benefits and
the right to vote, unless they can speak and read their host nations' languages at
postgraduate level, and to harass them in various petty ways.
As for Ukraine, the Zelensky govt has its work cut out trying to get Crimea back so the US
military can take over the base at Sevastopol and turn the Black Sea into a US lake, and to
clear out the Donbass region of those pesky Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics and make
it secure for oil and natural gas exploration and exploitation. The Bidens depend on Zelensky
to get those oil and natural gas resources so they can get their cut.
Anna Kolesnik, cited by Piotr Berman @ 12 has it exactly. The emigres are already
arriving. Ukraine is and has been entirely a failed state. The Uke army is a joke. So they
have a new boatload of Humvees. Probably already sold. Humvees were going to stop T72 and up.
Right. High probability Ukraine simply vanishes, local residents invite stability and the
Russian army.
The normalcy bias expressed by host and commenters is extreme. Start believing in defeat.
Defeat is going to change your outlook.
"So what made the Russians suddenly move a massive invasion force toward Ukraine?
Well, it turns out that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky essentially signed a
declaration of war against Russia on March 24th. The document that he signed is known as
Decree No. 117/2021, and you won't read anything about it in the corporate media.
I really had to dig to find Decree No. 117/2021, but eventually I found it. I took
several of the paragraphs at the beginning of the document and I ran them through Google
translate
In accordance with Article 107 of the Constitution of Ukraine, I decree:
1. To put into effect the decision of the National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine
of March 11, 2021 "On the Strategy of deoccupation and reintegration of the temporarily
occupied territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol"
(attached).
2. To approve the Strategy of deoccupation and reintegration of the temporarily occupied
territory of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol (attached).
3. Control over the implementation of the decision of the National Security and Defense
Council of Ukraine, enacted by this Decree, shall be vested in the Secretary of the
National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine.
4. This Decree shall enter into force on the day of its publication
.
President of Ukraine V.ZELENSKY
March 24, 2021
Basically, this decree makes it the official policy of the government of Ukraine to retake
Crimea from Russia. Of course the Russians will never hand over Crimea willingly because they
consider it to be Russian territory, and so Ukraine would have to take it by force."
That was more than a week ago. See how much Ukraine has done about it so far? That is as
much as they are able to do. Also quoted in #17 by imo, Mike Whitney/ZH "I really had to dig
to find Decree 117"... That would be because you have been trained to look away. That decree
was well reported, just not in the house organs of the idiots.
Martyanov has a new post up. Worth reading. He cites Michael Hudson on the overwhelming
influence Russian Jews have had on US policy. I would add Polish Jews. Zbig Brezinski gets
mentioned. Ever taken a look at his pamphlet, The Grand Chessboard? It has been required
reading for all students at Thomas Pickering School (State Department) for a generation.
Theme is Ukraine is center of universe. And this is because Zbig is a Polish aristocrat with
lost family estate on outskirts of Lvov. Any fool knows emigre info is useless and emigre
aristocrat most useless of all. Any in US policy establishment who should have known better
were blinded by Russophobia. (Just a note, spellcheck on this box changed my spelling to
'Lviv' multiple times before allowing old spelling. The thought control is total.)
The deployed Russian forces are not about overwhelming the Uke army. It is an occupation
force. They will be taking territory.
I don't see mention of Ukrainian build up and increased aggression on the border of Donbass.
That's why Russian troops are building up. They are posturing defensively. It's US-backed
Zelensky that is taking the aggressive position here.
77 millions that voted for Biden are not all "f....s". Everyone has some priorities,
imperfect choices etc.
That of course applies to countries, something that "responsible media" never considers,
but this is not a good role model for us.
Russia has to rely on her resources, so defending them from military and/or financial
takeover or even nuclear blackmail is a vital interest. While there are no perfect choices,
they try to choose the better ones. And not leaving people who speak Russian to repressions
and even massacres is another vital interest.
In the current situation, Russia clearly needs a deterrence for any possible blitzkrieg
type of plan by Ukraine. But pre-emption would not be the best choice.
In turn, Ukrainian government/elite has to bet on a patron and at least make some
appearance of diligently following what the patron wants. And for that, they need to
raise/maintain tensions with Russia (and China? hard is our fate now that we are
underlings).
I'm sure oldhippie means that if the Ukies are subservient enough to the US to actually
attack, this will almost certainly be reminiscent of Georgia (rather than just some cruise
missile strikes, as some had speculated). The buildup means Russia is prepared to sweep into
the Ukraine, and probably make a special point of killing as many Nazi battalions as
possible, along with any Ukie troops who don't surrender quickly enough. I don't see them
entering Kiev, just like they didn't try to take Tblisi, but I imagine they will try to take
most of the pro-Russian territory in the East and possibly even South, until Kiev begs for a
cease-fire (just like last time), but this time the conditions of cease fire will likely be
much more strongly enforced, and then I would imagine Russia will try to establish some
assemblage of peace-keeping troops from countries they can trust (maybe Shanghi Coalition?)
so that they can withdraw their troops as soon as possible, for political reasons. Not that
it will help, but then again, I think Russia sees they'll be damned if they do, damned if
they don't, so they might as well do it. But they damn sure don't want to take ownership of
the Ukraine, just like they didn't want to own Georgia.
The Dems and Republicans are two heads of the same hydra, voting for one or the other is a
charade played on the American people and is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The US is
a state run for the benefit of the economic elite that owns the media and from which the
political elite is chosen/sponsored and which is aligned with the military elite. Presidents
will come and go, policy pretty much stays the same, its the same as CEOs of corporations -
if they don't follow profit maximization they will be booted out.
The US elites all went to the same schools (or military academy) where they were
inculcated with "American Exceptionalism" and the need for "America to be the Global
Policeman", ending up with mediocrities such as Blinken and Pompeo that thrash around as the
world moves to multipolarity and the US becomes just another important nation. It will take
at least decades for the US elite to get their heads around this, the British still haven't
as seen by their wasting of resources on showy projects such as the two useless aircraft
carriers (know as "targets" by submariners and missile batteries) to assuage its "size"
envy.
Granted I am just an armchair observer but I have been watching since before the Maidan coup.
Something feels different this time, as if the positions of the players involved have changed
somehow. I realize that the multipolar world has been incubating for some time now and that
Russia, China et.al. have been waiting patiently for USA to collapse from exhaustion, but I
rather doubt that it will do so with a wimper. There may come a time when the RF armed forces
may opt to use a quick bone crushing response to say 'enough'. While this is never an great
option to have to take due to potential reprecussions, it can sometimes be better than being
slowly swallowed by the serpeant of Mission Creep.....
"Our rhetoric [over Donbass] is absolutely constructive," Peskov said in reply to a
question. "We do not indulge in wishful thinking. Regrettably, the realities along the
engagement line are rather frightening. Provocations by the Ukrainian armed forces do take
place. They are not casual. There have been many of them."
Ukraine's economy is collapsing. Even the IMF (USA) is getting tired of giving it free
money:
Prospects for Ukraine this year to receive even the second tranche of the IMF under the $ 5
billion credit line, which Kiev agreed with the Fund last June, remain vague. Although
according to the schedule, Ukraine should have already mastered the second and third
tranches for a total of $ 1.35 billion and is about to receive the fourth tranche in the
amount of $ 0.55 billion, in fact, the first June tranche of 2.1 billion is still the only
one.
Commenting on this situation on television, Ukrainian Finance Minister Sergei Marchenko
said this week: "The IMF does not give money, because, unfortunately, as a country, we have
crumpled up some obligations and must renew them."
[...]
So far, budget holes have been bridged by historically record borrowings in December
last year (over $ 6 billion) and an increase in interest rates on domestic borrowings this
year. But last year's reserves and domestic borrowing are insufficient either to cover the
$ 9 billion budget deficit or to service the external public debt, which will cost at least
$ 8.1 billion this year (excluding the cost of securing new loans).
The IMF, by the way, is not interested in getting its money back - they already knew the
black hole they were entering into when the coup happened in 2014 - but in social
engineering: the American Empire wants a brand new province:
According to the aforementioned Sergei Marchenko, the IMF puts forward five main conditions
for returning to consideration of the issue of allocating the second tranche of the loan.
First , the Fund requires the restoration of liability, including criminal
liability, for the declaration of false information by officials and other persons for whom
such is provided in the framework of anti-corruption procedures. This type of
responsibility was actually abolished by the Constitutional Court of Ukraine (CCU) in
October last year as part of the recognition of a number of provisions of the
anti-corruption law as unconstitutional. Although almost the entire so-called
anti-corruption infrastructure in a format imposed by the West contradicts the
Constitution, the judges are concerned about this problem mainly because of the
infringement of their rights. Since then, Zelenskiy has effectively blocked the work of the
KSU, making a number of decisions that clearly go beyond his constitutional powers. And
last December, the Verkhovna Radaeven restored responsibility for declaring inaccurate
data. But within the framework of the struggle for control over the anti-corruption
infrastructure, the "seven-embassy" (the ambassadors of the G7 countries) did not even
think that responsibility had been restored.
Secondly , we are talking about the restoration of the so-called independence of
the National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), that is, the accountability of the body to
Western curators, their actual appointment and accountability of the head of NABU, etc. and
imply the legal consolidation of the full control of the West over the entire
anti-corruption infrastructure, which in its essence is a parallel structure of government
in the state. After amending the law on NABU and recognizing as unconstitutional the
appointment of Artem Sytnik, a protege of the West, by the head of NABU Zelenskiy never
dared to fire him. But even such a manifestation of loyalty to the "seven-embassy" seemed
not enough.
Thirdly , the Fund demands urgently to "reform" the High Council of Justice, that
is, to transfer the judicial branch of power under the control of the West - by analogy
with anti-corruption bodies. In this issue, Ukraine is showing the greatest resistance so
far. Moreover, it comes both from the judges themselves and from representatives of other
branches of government. For obvious reasons: the surrender of the judicial system will
destroy even the miserable remnants of sovereignty, and most importantly, it will carry
serious risks both for judges and for various top-level officials.
Fourth and fifth - issues of the gas market and the electricity market. In the
context of these markets, the Fund is interested in the abolition of tariffs [n.t. -
probably it means here "subsidies"] for the population with a corresponding increase in
prices. The Ukrainian, let's say, elites just do not care about the problems of the
population - that is why the refusal to regulate gas prices for the population last year
became one of the first fulfilled requirements of the IMF. However, when winter came, gas
prices skyrocketed and social protests broke out across the country , and gas price
regulation had to be urgently returned. Of course, only for a while - first until April,
now until May. But the Fund did not like this either: just the other day, the head of the
IMF office in Ukraine, Jost Lyngman, called a return to gas price control in an ineffective
way of subsidizing households. Exactly the same applies to electricity prices - the tariff
for the population was raised in winter, but the Fund wants the regulated tariff to
disappear altogether. The Ukrainian authorities are, of course, ready to meet the IMF
halfway on these issues. But so that social protests do not completely reset her
ratings.
The article also mentions that Ukraine effectively cannot borrow elsewhere in the "free
market" because its bonds are rated "junk" (this we already knew, since it's been so for some
years now) and that its "borrowing rates" (interest rates) are at 12% (bonds) and 6.5%
(central bank's). In other words, Ukraine will disappear as a sovereign country, one way
(outright loss of the Eastern regions, reduction to a impoverished para-Polish rump state) or
the other (become a proto-colony of the USA a la Puerto Rico). My guess is Zelensky is
calculating an all-out war to reconquer the richer eastern regions, followed by a triumphal
accession to NATO, to be the only way out for Ukraine as a nation-state.
If Ukraine attacks the eastern provinces, there will be a repeat of Georgia 2008. The Russian
counter will be ferocious.
But Ukraine is just a puppet for America, which will use, abuse and even lose Ukraine for
*other purposes*.
Those other purposes are fortifying European subordination to NATO, cancelling Nord Stream
2 and breaking any German and French rapprochement with Moscow. US hegemony is in fact
conditional on a climate of hostility between Europe and Russia in general, and between
Germany and Moscow in particular. Hence the need to provoke Germany to cancel NS2. The
Navalny operation didn't work, and the sanctions didn't work either. So it's on to Plan C,
which might sacrifice Ukraine for the greater project of US empire.
In the bigger picture, the strategy is to globalize NATO against China. This is the Biden
regime's specific strategy of provoking minor conflicts to fortify alliances and bloc
politics for taking on China and Russia. Ukraine is just disposable trash in this game.
That Merkel and Macron just met with Putin is further evidence of the unlikeliness of war.
Frau Merkel in particular has an interest in preventing a war because it is Germany who needs
the Nordstream pipeline (to Washington's displeasure); the Russians can just as easily sell
their natural gas to China if Nordstream falters. Thus the Germans are more likely to exert
pressure on Ukraine to forebear than they are to let Ukraine loose the dogs of war.
I agree with you, oldhippie @ 20. And thanks to b and other posters here who have kept us
well apprised of the events in Ukraine as the buildup commenced on the Ukrainian side,
supported by US munitions.
Actually, as far as I can understand it, if the Russians do enter Ukraine it will be at
the behest of the Ukrainians themselves, just as it was in Crimea. They will be as supportive
as possible of the Donbass, which is already back in the Russian Federation in every way
except the formal declaration.
But Russia wants the country of Ukraine to remain whole. That's a big ask, but it surely
must include all areas like Odessa in order to be viable as a member of the Federation. I
don't know if that is possible yet, but rule by force has existed for so long under such
duress there, that I do believe the entire civilian population would be happy to have this
happen. And in will come the Russian aid, pouring in on tanks if need be, to a population
weary of hardship.
Russia certainly doesn't want to be on a war footing with Ukraine, since it considers the
citizenry to be its own people historically speaking, as Putin has said many times. It will
not force the issue; it can be patient. But if its troops do enter, they will only do so if
they are welcome; and I think that welcome mat is fast being woven, as fast as Penelopes in
the Donbass can weave it. And as for the rest of Ukraine, plenty of Penelopes there as
well.
It may not be Ukraine will enter the Federation immediately - there will have to be talks
and so much restructuring politically speaking before that can happen. But if the hand of
Russia is still extended in friendship to places like the US, it most certainly would be to a
sane and peaceful Ukrainian government.
This time the buildup is very real. But NATO has no reason to be "concerned", as it is
they who have the initiative. Russia will only move in response to a Ukrainian attack on
Donbass. Ukraine will only attack after it gets approval or direct orders from
Washington.
Work on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline is progressing fast. I estimate that pipelaying
may be finished by the end of May. To prevent it from happening, Ukraine has to attack in
April. Rumors claim that the planned date of the attack is April 15, 2021. The problem on the
Ukrainian side is that there is no sensible war plan, apart from attacking Donbass and then
immediately withdrawing to defensive position on the western shore of the Dnieper River.
Christelle Néant from Donetsk published this on March 16th, citing Ukrainian
sources.
In an enlightening article, the Ukrainian media outlet Strana revealed that not only is
the Ukrainian army preparing for an offensive in the Donbass, but that there is an
emergency plan to stop the attack if Russia were to send its own army in. This information
is nothing less than a debunking of seven years of Ukrainian propaganda, which claims that
Ukraine is fighting Russia in the Donbass.
The article is based on sources in the Ukrainian army and the Defence Ministry, and
begins by questioning the reality of Kiev's preparation for an offensive against the
Donbass.
Strana's sources on the front line confirm that there is no longer a ceasefire, nor a
withdrawal of troops and equipment. The source even makes it clear that it was Ukraine that
first violated this provision of the Minsk package of measures, and that the DPR and LPR
(Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics) did so only afterwards, in response to the
violation by the Ukrainian army.
...
BUT, because there is a but in this kind of rather too pretty plan, if Russia sends its
army to intervene then the Ukrainian army will have to give up its offensive against the
Donbass and withdraw.
"In this case, the AFU offensive will be stopped. With a high degree of probability,
the troops will then have to withdraw, so as not to fall again into cauldrons," says the
Strana source in the Ukrainian Defence Ministry.
In other words, for the Ukrainian army's offensive in the Donbass to work, Russia must
not intervene. The problem for Kiev is that Russia has no intention of letting several
hundred thousand of its citizens die on its border without reacting. A problem that
Strana's source is well aware of.
J.Swift#38
Nice riff on 'How to Win Friends and Influence People'!
Excellent take on the situation as it has unfolded. I agree with your observations re: a
change in tone coming Russia and China in regard to their criticizms of the USA. It's likely
that they have indeed run the numbers on both how much damage they can absorb and what their
counter move would be as compare to the long drawn out decline that seems to be atking
forever.
The line (or really one of the several) is when the USA get more directly involved and
sustains losses at the hands of Russian forces. Nobody really wants to find out what happens
when the The Darkness behind the might of the Pentagram has a hissy fit. The yapping dog
might just beable to run the numbers itself and see the outcome as being very disadventageous
to itself and it's minions. Who am I kidding, the USA doesn't care a whit about it's
minions....
I believe you are right. A war is unlikely, but with madmen in Washington you never know.
Some of them would like to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian.
But, Russia is moving substantial troops and equipment to the Ukrainian border to deter
the Kiev authorities from invading the Donetsk People's Republic (DNR) and the Luhansk
People's Republic (LNR) - so this is real not a made-up story (it is not what 'normal' troop
movements as the b's article implies). Russia is drawing a red line and it should be seen as
such!
Russia's actions will probably be enough to dissuade Kiev but what have they got to lose?
The Kiev regime is failing, its economy is in freefall, disaster beckons - a glorious
military defeat might be considered preferable to inevitable social and economic
collapse.
Kiev may also have well-founded belief that the US/West will be forced to support them
militarily to keep the secrets of western involvement in the downng of MH17 out of Russian
hands.
Thank you for all the compliments. I am not and will not be angry with librul for more
than one moment, in the past. Same Biden/Trump barbs are tossed daily on a face to face
basis. It has become how Americans are.
Ghostship does make some good points. Not theoretical to me. Here in Chicago FuhrerTag is
still celebrated at many bars. Large group sings of Horst Wessex song occur for a variety of
occasions. When at University of Illinois (70s) there was a sizable contingent of OUN
children in the History Department. They freely Indulged in Sieg Heil and Slava Ukraina to
greet each other publicly. There was also an Ustache contingent who did return to Croatia,
not to fight but to govern. Shall we say that these groups were insane. Some did go to
military careers.Some did go to State Department. Some did go to think tanks. If the subject
is Russia clinical insanity is not a career impediment in America.
For two days I owned the Rainbow, Bugsy Siegel's old joint 1900 N. Damen. . That was
Ukrainian Village. My money was refunded. The alternative was death. Yes, they put guns in my
face. Yes, they could do that. No, I do not like these people.
None of us predicts future with any accuracy. Will keep pointing out that downsides for
Russia will vanish with victory. They have a lot of choices in how they could construct that
victory. Every choice US/NATO has available is nothing but a defeat.
It is a very important reminder as to how insane and mindless the neo con hatred is of
Russia and Putin. It is indeed alarming that this rabid hatred controls the neo cons and what
passes for us foreign policy. How can on expect rational policy when the people in charge are
completely irrational.
If nothing else, just note the quote in the article from Hudson-it is beyond alarming as
to the description by hudson of the mindless and controlling irrationality of the neo cons in
the dimo biden admin!
I watched a video by Alexander Mercouris China Warns Ukraine on Crimea Ties which
shows how coordinated this present crisis may be, as Washington may be maneuvering its
Ukrainian proxy into nationalizing a corporation there that manufactures a variety of turbine
engines, built to power both warships and aircraft. Zelensky is applying pressure on both
China and Russia at once. The Russians have overcome some manufacturing problems and have had
to build up their own stocks of turbines for military use. Responding to Zelensky's seizure
of their assets and investments in Ukraine, the Chinese have sent an economic mission that
involves serious investments in Crimea .
A coordinated threat to the culturally Russian Donbas and Lugansk region and the
nationalizing of Chinese assets will place China and Russia again on the same path in their
diplomatic response. It would not be a surprise if China officially recognizes Crimea as part
of the Russian Federation.
To be fair, the neocon's feel that way about everyone - they embrace the role of paranoid
imperialist because that's a relatively accessible way to get funded in the DC policy world.
The striking thing is the hubris - they're just going to fight everyone all at the same time
and it will somehow be okay in the end, no cost to them.
Russia doesn't need "troops" to defend Donetz and Luhansk; Russian can destroy Ukrainian
forces using stand-off weapons and then DNR and LNR forces can easily cope with what remains.
Russian doesn't need forces to "occupy" Donetz and Luhansk because these areas will remain
under the control of the republics. What Russia needs "troops" for is to advance and capture
Kiev and this is what Russia's troop deployments threaten. If the conflict starts in Ukraine
then Russia will demonstrate its ability to do whatever it wants in all areas of Ukraine;
then Russia will withdraw and leave what is left for the West/EU and US to deal with.
Rationally, nothing will happen because Kiev will be deterred. But, many elements in the
Kiev regime may desire war because they believe the West will (because they "have to")
support them (or, as I already said, glorious defeat may seem preferable to the slow-burn
collapse of their regime). The US/West may encourage Kiev because they are posturing for war
and the plandemic is envisaged as the best time for such an event (I feel the likelihood of
this is underestimated), or compelling a demonstration of Russian "aggression" may have
overriding propaganda value (regardless of the outcome for the Kiev regime) for their own
populations (everyone can really hate on Russia for the next 10 years - hate is a great
unifier).
All of this is to be expected after weeks and weeks of UAF buildup along the Donbass
border. In fact, they've been shelling villages in the Donbass for some time now since they
re-instigated aggression in February. Even today they were shelling the infamous Donetsk
airport. On top of that you've got US aerial vehicles flying around the Black Sea right
underneath Crimea and next to Krasnodar. Kiev's posturing has signaled their supposed
willingness to attack the Donbass and attempt to retake Crimea, so Russia's reaction to
protect Russian citizens would be entirely reasonable.
The defense ministers of Ukraine and the United States held their second conversation in a
month and a half on the situation in Donbass. According to Andriy Taran, the Americans
promised Kiev "support measures" in the event of a direct military conflict between Ukraine
and Russia.
The US will not come to the aid of Ukraine. That is a pipe dream, pun intended.
@JohninMK et al:
On the surface this seems to be a continuation of the provocation game, which has been the
tactic since the beginning. The Ukies are definitely upping the ante by threatening Crimea. I
can only assume that they are deep into thinking wishfully that the USA will "come to rescue"
when they poke the bear. But in both their cases I have to wonder: with WHAT? The Ukies dont
have an effective army as demonstrated by mass defection and surrender last bout. Other than
"punishment battallions" there do not seem to be many troops willing to fight. As for the
USA, they are not shock troops, they are an occupation force. So then is it to be some sort
aerial ballet of stand-off weapons over the skies of the Donbass??
As stated above, the Western MSM is going to shriek like flock of terrified Karens no
matter what Russia does so they may as well earn it. My mind wanders over the demonstration
of the Iskander in Syria most recently. Ten or so of those simultaneously in the right places
would bring a Ukrops offensive to sudden halt if there were the will to do so.....
Zelensky is making de-escalation noises. Bit late for that. Should this all ratchet down
it will be the end of Zelensky. Bear in mind he is there only because there is no one else.
As an actor and a comedian he has been impersonating a President. He did that for the sitcom
cameras and then he did it in real life.
It will also be the last time Ukraine ever pretends to field an army. Conscripts will make
their way home somehow, they won't be played again. Heavy equipment and ammo will be
auctioned off cheap to any who can arrange transport. Transport will be questionable, arms
will be sold very cheap.
Ukraine army is heavily larded with mercs and Wahabi jihadis from all over the planet.
Idiots could still start something big even if the "leadership" calls it off. Shelling has
been happening all day up and down the line. Artillery is mostly mercs. Russia is holding
fire so far, one shell chances to fall on a concentration of Russian troops and it is on.
Poles and other idiots could also blow this up. Way too many moving pieces and no one in
charge, either in Kiev or Washington.
If this excitement just ends Ukraine will go from a comic opera government to no
government at all. Russia will move in for humanitarian reasons. Western Ukraine will die or
flood to Europe.
I see we are back to the "fog of war".
There has been artillery/mortar fire around Horlivka and elsewhere. (50 shells) These
mortar attacks were conducted by the 58th motorised rifle brigade of the Armed Forces of
Ukraine from the areas of Avdeevka and Pervomaisky.
A Global Hawk is presumed to have flown over both Donetsk and Luhansk - various altitudes to
test the Russian radars. This is the same type that was shot down by Iran. Maybe the US wants
to order a few more replacements?
One vid that is supposed to show a train full of Tor systems of the 56 airborne has already
been debunked as filmed a long way away on the other side of Russia, (The 56th do not have
Tors)
It is clear that there is a definite push to provoke a Russian reaction. The threats about
Crimea mean that any movement in that area will be taken seriously, as "several" high ranking
Russian Generals have arrived there. Russian Generals lead from the front, not the back as do
the UK or US versions. (see Syria)
It is the details that are showing that this will escalate (Burning houses and villages)
and civilians in bunkers. I was going to show you the picture of an old man still in the
firing area, because he has nowhere else to go . Someday the human cost must be
counted.
***
Interesting tie ups with the BRI and Afghanistan from Karlof1's post @70. One mention of a
canal between the Sea of Azof and the Caspian, via Russsia. The "anything but Suez"
canal?
More than that, I realised that the Saudi Arabian NOEM (Straight Line road) across the
Gulf of Aqaba to Sharm el-Sheik, will eventually give it access to the Med via Egypt and
Africa, without going through Israel. (Or Lebanon, Syria or Turkey)
Syria is in a mess because of lack of fuel. Their stolen fuel is/was bought by Israel
cheaply. Are you sure that the EverGiven WAS an accident?
*****
Biden has Zelenskys back - if he is thinking of his back pocket there is nothing left in
it.
I'm sure oldhippie means that if the Ukies are subservient enough to the US to actually
attack, this will almost certainly be reminiscent of Georgia (rather than just some cruise
missile strikes, as some had speculated). The buildup means Russia is prepared to sweep into
the Ukraine, and probably make a special point of killing as many Nazi battalions as
possible, along with any Ukie troops who don't surrender quickly enough. I don't see them
entering Kiev, just like they didn't try to take Tblisi, but I imagine they will try to take
most of the pro-Russian territory in the East and possibly even South, until Kiev begs for a
cease-fire (just like last time), but this time the conditions of cease fire will likely be
much more strongly enforced, and then I would imagine Russia will try to establish some
assemblage of peace-keeping troops from countries they can trust (maybe Shanghi Coalition?)
so that they can withdraw their troops as soon as possible, for political reasons. Not that
it will help, but then again, I think Russia sees they'll be damned if they do, damned if
they don't, so they might as well do it. But they damn sure don't want to take ownership of
the Ukraine, just like they didn't want to own Georgia.
A fair and balanced analysis, as far as it goes.
We must remember the Stavka is in charge....
What makes the most sense to them??? Where should the cease fire line be??? The best place
to put it is the midline of the Denieper River. It is a natural boundary. It is wide enough
so anything less than 155 mm artillery can't reach across. It resolves permanently water
supply to Crimea.
NATO will use this action to censure, villify, and sanction Russia. She might as well get
something for that.
Will this happen?? Last year, I'd say no.... but now.... anything goes...
I thought Biden would not start a war until next year to save the 2022 mid-term elections. My
speculation is that Merkel is standing firm on Nord Stream 2 so the Biden administration is
going to use the Ukrainians to start up a war against Russia to physically shut down the
construction of the pipeline and introduce sanctions like against SWIFT, Aeroflot, etc.
During a meeting with Defense Minister of Ukraine Andriy Taran and the leadership of the
Armed Forces of Ukraine, the defense attaches of the United States, Canada and the United
Kingdom assured Ukraine of the support in defending its sovereignty and territorial
integrity. "US, Canada's, and UK Defense Attaches met with Minister of Defense [of Ukraine]
Taran, Deputy Minister Petrenko, Deputy Minister Polishchuk, Joint Forces Commander
Lieutenant General Naiev, and Colonel Budanov," the U.S. Embassy posted on Twitter. The
Embassy assured Ukraine of support in defending its sovereignty and territorial integrity:
"We stand with Ukraine as it defends its sovereignty and territorial integrity and are
watching the situation in Ukraine closely."
The story is number one or two all over the place (The Hill, Politico, Reuters, The
Washington Times,...).
No mention of Ukraine except perhaps in minor side stories.
"Biden holds first call with Ukrainian president amid Russian buildup"
By NATASHA BERTRAND and LARA SELIGMAN
04/02/2021 09:39 AM EDT
Updated: 04/02/2021 11:24 AM EDT
President Joe Biden and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky spoke on Friday morning
for the first time since Biden took office, amid reports of a Russian military buildup in
eastern Ukraine that has alarmed U.S. and Ukrainian officials.
The leaders spoke for 30 to 40 minutes, according to a person with knowledge of the
call. A White House readout of the conversation said Biden "reaffirmed the United States'
unwavering support for Ukraine's sovereignty and territorial integrity in the face of
Russia's ongoing aggression in the Donbas and Crimea."
For decades, America styled itself the 'indispensable
nation' that led the world & it's now seeking to sustain that role by emphasizing a new Cold War-style battle against
'authoritarianism'. But it's a dangerous fantasy.
It seems a week cannot go by without US
Secretary of State Antony Blinken
bringing
up the specter of the 'rules-based international order' as an excuse for meddling in the affairs of another state or region.
The most recent crisis revolves around allegations that
China
has
dispatched a fleet of more than 200 ships, part of a so-called 'maritime militia', into waters of the South China Sea claimed by
the Philippines. China says that these vessels are simply fishing boats seeking shelter from a storm. The Philippines has
responded by dispatching military ships and aircraft to investigate. Enter Antony Blinken, stage right:
"The United States stands with our ally, the Philippines, in the face of the PRC's maritime
militia amassing at Whitsun Reef,"
Blinken
tweeted
.
"We
will always stand by our allies and stand up for the rules-based international order."
Blinken's message came a mere 18 hours after he tweeted about his meeting in Brussels with NATO.
"Our alliances were created to defend shared values,"
he
wrote
.
"Renewing
our commitment requires reaffirming those values and the foundation of international relations we vow to protect: a free and
open rules-based order."
Our rules, our order
What this actually means, of course, is that the order is rules-based so long as it is the nation called America that sets these
rules and is accepted as the world's undisputed leader.
Blinken's fervent embrace of the 'rules-based international order' puts action behind the words set forth in the recently
published 'Interim National Security Strategy Guidance', a White House
document
which
outlines
President Joe Biden'
s vision
"for how
America will engage with the world."
While the specific term 'rules-based international order' does not appear in the body of the document, the precepts it represents
are spelled out in considerable detail, and conform with the five pillars of the
"liberal
international order"
as set forth by the noted international relations scholars,
Daniel
Duedney
and
G.
John Ikenberry
, in their ground-breaking
essay
,
'The nature and sources of liberal international order', published by the Review of International Studies in 1999.
The origins of this
"liberal international order"
can be traced back to the end of the
Second World War and the onset of a Cold War between Western liberal democracies, helmed by the United States, and the communist
bloc nations, led by the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China. The purpose of this order was simple – to maintain a
balance of power between the US-led liberal democracies and their communist adversaries, and to maintain and sustain US hegemony
over its liberal democratic allies.
This was accomplished through five basic policy
'pillars': Security co-binding; the embrace of US hegemony; self-limitation on the part of US allies; the politicization of
global economic institutions for the gain of liberal democracies; and Western
"civil
identity."
All five are emphasized in Biden's interim guidance, in which the president openly advocates for
"a
stable and open international system."
It notes that
"the alliances, institutions,
agreements, and norms underwriting the international order the United States helped to establish are being tested."
The faltering empire's flaws and inequities
Biden also observed that the restoration of this international order
"rests on a core
strategic proposition: The United States must renew its enduring advantages so that we can meet today's challenges from a
position of strength. We will build back better our economic foundations; reclaim our place in international institutions; lift
up our values at home and speak out to defend them around the world; modernize our military capabilities, while leading first
with diplomacy; and revitalize America's unmatched network of alliances and partnerships."
All five of Duedney's and Ikenberry's policy 'pillars' can be found embedded in these – and other – statements contained in the
guidance.
There is a defensive tone to Biden's guidance, which notes that
"rapid
change and mounting crisis"
have exposed
"flaws and inequities"
in the US-dominated
international system which
"have caused many around the world – including many Americans – to
question its continued relevance."
Here Biden runs into the fundamental problem of trying to justify and sustain a model of economic-based global hegemony which was
founded at a time when the existence of a Western liberal democratic
"order"
could be
justified as a counter to the Soviet-led communist bloc. The Cold War ended in 1990. The 'international rules-based order' that
was created at the behest of the US to prevail in this conflict continued, however. It seems that the US wasn't simply satisfied
with preventing the spread of communism; its raison d'être instead transitioned from being the leader of an alliance of liberal
democracies, to being the global hegemon, using the very system devised to confront communism to instead install and sustain the
US as the undisputed dominant power in the world.
This trend began in the immediate aftermath of the end of the Cold War, where the US had the opportunity to pass the baton of
global leadership to the United Nations, an act that would have given legitimacy to the notion of an 'international order'.
This, however, proved a bridge too far for the neo-liberal tendencies of the administration of President Bill Clinton, who
continued the Cold War-era practice of using the UN as a vehicle to promote US policy prerogatives at the expense of the
international 'order'. Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright helped coin the term
"indispensable
nation"
when defining America's post-Cold War role in the world (it is notable that Blinken recently praised Albright in a
tweet
,
noting that
"her tenacity & effectiveness left the US stronger & more respected globally,"
and
adding
"she's a role model for me & so many of our diplomats."
)
The arrogance and hubris contained in any notion of a single nation being
"indispensable"
to
the global order is mind-boggling and is reflective of a disconnect with both reality and history on the part of those embracing
it.
The myth of indispensability
The unsustainability of the premise of American 'indispensability' was demonstrated by both the events of September 11, 2001, and
the inability of the US to deal with its aftermath. Had the US embraced and acted on President George H. W. Bush's notion of a
"new
world order"
in the aftermath of the Cold War, it would have found itself as a vital world leader working in concert with a
global community of nations to confront the scourge of Islamic fundamentalist-based terrorism. But this was not to be.
Instead, the 'indispensable nation' was exposed as a fraud, with many in the world recognizing the US not as a power worthy of
emulation, but rather as the source of global angst. This
rejection
of
America's self-anointed role as global savior extended to many Americans too, who were tired of the costs associated with serving
as the world's police force.
Indeed, this exhaustion with global intervention, and the costs accrued, helped create the foundation of electoral support for
Donald Trump's rejection of the
"rules-based international order"
in favor of a more
distinct
"America first"
approach to global governance. What gave Trump's policy so much
"punch"
was
the fact that not only did many American citizens reject the
"rules-based international
order,"
but so did much of the rest of the world.
Repairing the damage done by four years of Trump has become the number one priority of the Biden administration. To do this, both
Biden and Blinken recognize that they simply cannot return to the policy formulations that existed before Trump took office; that
ship has sailed, and trying to sell the American people and the rest of the world on what many viewed as a failed policy
construct (i.e., unilateral, uncontested American hegemony) was seen as an impossible task.
Instead, the Biden administration is seeking to reinvent the original premise of the
'rules-based international order' by substituting Russian and Chinese 'authoritarianism' in place of Soviet-led communism as a
threat which liberal democracies around the world willingly and enthusiastically rally around the US to confront.
"Authoritarianism is on the global march,"
Biden's guidance observed,
"and
we must join with like minded allies and partners to revitalize democracy the world over. We will work alongside fellow
democracies across the globe to deter and defend against aggression from hostile adversaries. We will stand with our allies
and partners to combat new threats aimed at our democracies"
and which
"undermine the
rules and values at the heart of an open and stable international system."
Biden concluded his essay in dramatic fashion.
"This moment is an inflection point,"
he
noted.
"We are in the midst of a fundamental debate about the future direction of our
world. No nation is better positioned to navigate this future than America. Doing so requires us to embrace and reclaim our
enduring advantages, and to approach the world from a position of confidence and strength. If we do this, working with our
democratic partners, we will meet every challenge and outpace every challenger. Together, we can and will build back better."
No longer the world's undisputed No.1
While postulated as a statement of American strength, Biden's concluding remarks actually project not only the inherent
insecurity of the US today, but also its root causes. The fact that the US needs to
"reclaim
our enduring advantages"
implies that we lost them, and illustrates that these so-called advantages are not nearly as
enduring as Biden would like to think.
"Building back better"
is an admission of
weakness, a recognition that the notion of an 'indispensable nation' is an artificial construct; most nations no longer accept
America as the world leader.
The reality is that the US is one of the most powerful nations in the world. That
position, however, is no longer uncontested; China has emerged as the equal of the US in many metrics used to measure global
power and influence, and superior in some.
Moreover, China operates effectively in a multi-polar global reality,
recognizing that the era of the American singularity is over. Russia, India, Brazil, and the European collective all represent
polar realities whose existence and influence exists independent of the US.
The US, however, cannot function in such a world.
While there is a growing
recognition among American politicians that the post-Cold War notion of the US being the sole-remaining superpower has run its
course, the only alternative these politicians can offer is the attempt to return to a bi-polar world which has the US at the
head of its liberal democratic 'partners', facing off against the forces of 'authoritarianism'. This vision, however, is
unrealistic, if for no other reason that the world no longer views Western liberal democracy as 'good', and authoritarianism as
'evil'.
This reality is evident to much of the rest of the world. Why, then, would US policy makers embrace a formulation doomed to fail?
The answer is simple – the US, as it exists today, needs the 'rules-based international order' to remain relevant. Relevant, as
used here, means globally dominant.
US politicians who operate on the national level cannot get elected on platforms that reject the 'indispensable' role of the
country, even if many Americans and most of the world have. US economic dominance is in large part sustained by the very systems
that underpin the 'rules-based international order' – the World Trade Organization and the World Bank. US geopolitical relevance
is sustained by Cold War-era military alliances.
An unviable, unsustainable future
An American retreat from being the 'indispensable' power, and a corresponding embrace of a leadership role based upon a more
collegial notion of shared authorities, would not mean the physical demise of the US – the nation would continue to exist as a
sovereign entity. But it would mean an end to the psychological reality of America as we know it today – a quasi-imperial power
whose relevance is founded on compelled global hegemony. This model is no longer viable. The fact that the Biden administration
has chosen to define its administration through an ardent embrace of this failed system is proof positive that the survival of
post-Cold War American is existentially connected to its ability to function as the world's 'indispensable nation'.
American exceptionalism is a narcotic that fuels the country's domestic politics more than global geo-political reality. The
'rules-based international order' that underpins this fantasy is unsustainable in the modern era and makes the collapse of the
"exceptional"
United
States inevitable.
Watching the Biden administration throw its weight behind a US-dominated 'rules-based
international order' is like watching the Titanic set sail; it is big, bold, and beautiful, and its fate pre-ordained.
lay_arrow
2banana
37 minutes ago
remove
link
We
are just about to see how that is going to work out in the Ukraine.
It seems a week cannot go by without US
Secretary
of State Antony Blinken
bringing up the specter of the 'rules-based international order' as an
excuse for meddling in the affairs of another state or region.
TimeHasCome
29 minutes ago
I
live near a huge military base and every night since the inauguration of Dementia Joe there has been
cannon fire and mortar fire every night . This nut is going to get us in a war.
TimeHasCome
29 minutes ago
I
live near a huge military base and every night since the inauguration of Dementia Joe there has been
cannon fire and mortar fire every night . This nut is going to get us in a war.
kanoli
31 minutes ago
The
rules-based international order requires US approval or national approval to put troops on the ground in
another country. The US troops in Syria are there illegally, Mr. Blinken. Is the rules-based
international order only for the other countries?
TBT or not TBT
14 minutes ago
"Syria" is a place on a map, but demonstrably is no longer a sovereign country able to manage its own
territory. Dozens of factions and foreign powers operate in its former territory.
Apollo Capricornus Maximus
10 minutes ago
rules based international order = laser guided joint direct attack munitions
End Times Prophecy
25 minutes ago
The
international criminals against humanity, WMD using, international mass murderer, repeated international
declarations of war , international terrorists, permanently Oath of Office breaching and violating
subversive, seditious, traitors and more are blathering about being a part of a rules-based international
order?
Clearly these maniacs are an exceptionally extreme danger to themselves and the entire World and more.
Chain Man
3 minutes ago
(Edited)
The
US should have a law (lol) that no politicians can make any money other than his regular pay when coming
into office plus his pay from their elected position (on going tabs on income while in Office.). Don't
like it don't run !
The
problem with being a leader is you have to get involved in the Nations problem most of the time, then the
USA gets charged with being the problem. Leave um the hell alone if they screw with us blow um away. End
the Foreign Aid and we will end their smart *** crap.
Just work with the foreign Nations we can screw these drawn out treaties
Mearsheimer is an interesting cat. His whole conception of international relations seems
to be that it is necessarily zero-sum, and that the general model is that of US regional
hegemony, as in the Monroe Doctrine in the 19th century and the frankly neocolonial
relationship that exists today. (and he makes no attempt to dress it up as anything other
than the brute power relations). His thesis is that there must be a conflict, and that the US
will successfully get all of China's neighbors to join the US in opposing the rise of China.
Importantly, if you go back to look at talks he gave and how they've evolved in the last 15
years, Mearsheimer included Russia in his "anti-China balancing coalition" list, up until
2013-2014. More recent talks have him leaning essentially on Japan, Australia, and India,
with South Korea and ASEAN determined to avoid picking sides as Mearsheimer would have it,
and most of central Asia, plus Iran and Pakistan, already on the Chinese side.
I also take issue with Mearsheimer's singular focus on the regional-hegemony model,
although I think it does provide good insights into the thinking behind US policy. But in
reality, there have been long stretches of history, European history in particular, where
there was in fact a balance of power on the regional level, not to mention on the global
level.
Besides that, with significant numbers of nuclear weapons, the historical analogies of the
first half of the 20th century pretty much go out the window. No decisive war between
superpowers is possible, except by accident, and in that case it will not be decisive in the
way he means. It's all proxy conflict from the 1950s on. And when it comes to proxy conflict,
the clear imperative for third parties, from the history of the last 70 years, is to avoid
becoming a proxy battleground.
Meanwhile Biden's son Hunter, the "smartest guy" his father knows, has his feet firmly in
his mouth in excerpts from an interview this Sunday about his 💻 that was full of
underage porn & business dealings involving his father when VPOTUS.
THOMAS QUICK SUBSCRIBER 1 hour ago I doubt it. Vaccination doesn't cure chronic grifters.
Like thumb_up 1 Reply reply Share link Report
flag
N N Z SUBSCRIBER 2 hours ago "Medical science is making such remarkable progress that soon
none of us will be well.'' ---Aldous Huxley
The US-China meeting in Anchorage took place 75 years almost to the day of the Winston
Iron Curtain speech in Fulton, Missouri. Just as the latter signalled a break point in the
uneasy, war forced cohabit of the West with the communist Soviet Union, so too the Anchorage
will enter the history as the break point in the US hegemony threatening collaboration of the
West and China.
Since WW2, no other nation, not even Russia, has confronted the US so firmly and so
publicly as did Yang Jiechi, one of the ruling member of the Chinese Politburo when he said
that "the United States does not have the qualification to speak to China from a position of
strength'.
That was a slap in the face the Americans will have to respond to, and it's in the nature
of the response one will find whether the American Governing elite is prepared to share power
or go for a confrontation.
Written by Steven Lee Myers, the NYT 's bureau chief in Beijing, the piece is
full of false and unsupported assertions. It changes explicit Chinese statements in support
of democracy and human rights into the opposite. It is also untruthful about the sources of
its quotes:
China hopes to position itself as the main challenger to an international order, led by the
United States, that is generally guided by principles of democracy, respect for human
rights and adherence to rule of law.
Such a system "does not represent the will of the international community," China's
foreign minister, Wang Yi, told Russia's, Sergey V. Lavrov, when they met in the southern
Chinese city of Guilin.
In a joint statement, they accused the United States of bullying
and interference and urged it to "reflect on the damage it has done to global peace and
development in recent years."
There is no evidence and no quote in the piece to support the assertion that the
unilateral "international order, led by the United States" is in fact "guided by principles
of democracy, respect for human rights and adherence to rule of law." The wars the U.S. and
its allies have waged and wage in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen and other countries are, in fact,
not in adherence to the rule of international law nor are they executed with respect for
human rights or the principles of democracy.
The Wang Yi quote in the second paragraph is taken completely out of context. By placing
it after his false assertions the author insinuates that Wang Yi rejected the "principles of
democracy, respect for human rights and adherence to rule of law."
Wang Yi did not do that at all. He did in fact the opposite.
Here is the original
quote from the report of Wang Yi's meeting with Russia's foreign minister Sergei
Lavrov:
Wang Yi said, the so-called "rules-based international order" by a few countries is not
clear in its meaning , as it reflects the rules of a few countries and does not represent
the will of the international community . We should uphold the universally recognized
international law.
The there is the
Joint Statement from the Lavrov-Wang Yi meeting which contradicts the New York
Times insinuation:
The world has entered a period of high turbulence and rapid change. In this context, we
call on the international community to put aside any differences and strengthen mutual
understanding and build up cooperation in the interests of global security and geopolitical
stability, to contribute to the establishment of a fairer, more democratic and rational
multipolar world order.
All human rights are universal, indivisible and interrelated. ...
Democracy is one of the achievements of humanity. ...
International law is an important condition for the further development of humanity.
...
In promoting multilateral cooperation, the international community must adhere to
principles such as openness and equality, and a non-ideological approach. ...
The Chinese Foreign Ministry report
about the issuance of the above Four Point Statement quotes Wang Yi as saying:
Today, we will issue a joint statement on several issues of current global governance,
expounding the essence of major concepts such as human rights, democracy, international
order, and multilateralism, reflecting the collective demands of the international
community, especially developing countries. We call on all countries to participate in and
improve global governance in the spirit of openness, inclusiveness and equality, abandon
zero-sum mentality and ideological prejudice, stop interfering in the internal affairs of
any country, enhance the well-being of people of all countries through dialogue and
cooperation, and jointly build a community with a shared future for mankind.
In no way has China rejected human rights, democracy or the rule of law. The New York
Times author simply construed that.
The third NYT paragraph quoted above is likewise false. The
Joint Statement did not urge the U.S. to "reflect on the damage it has done to global
peace and development in recent years." There is nothing in there that could be construed as
such. The U.S. is not even mentioned in the Joint Statement.
The quote the NYT author uses is not from the official Joint Statement, as
falsely claimed, but from a Chinese State TV's summarization of a
press conference :
Both foreign ministers said that the international community believes that the United
States should reflect on the damage it has done to global peace and development in recent
years , stop unilateral bullying, stop interfering in other countries' internal affairs,
and stop pulling "small circles" to engage in group confrontation.
Unsupported assertions about the motives of the "U.S. led" order, out of context quotes
that turn the actual statements by the Chinese foreign minister into their opposite and
missattribution of a news summary as a diplomatic statement is something that one would not
expect from a news outlet but from a propaganda organ.
That is then, obviously, what the Times has become.
Thanks b, for bringing this to light.
Without your posts, most of us - even those of us that try to dig into things more than
most people - would not be aware of these things.
Western mainstream media will, of course, never inform the public of those important
excerpts from the Lavrov-Wang Joint Statement and the Chinese Foreign Ministry that you
brought to our attention.
In our so-called "democracies", the electorates are not just deliberately kept in the
dark, but in fact shaped, not into informed voters, but disinformed voters.
-
Again to translate from the Orwellianism/Newspeak of our Western establishment news media,
when they say "international order" what they really mean is the "Western
deep-state-run order" or "Western neocon-run order."
"Generally guided by principles of democracy, respect for human rights and adherence to
rule of law" can be translated to "generally guided by hypocrisy, Orwellianism, special
interests, gangsterism, treachery, and mockery of rule of law."
fallacia non causae ut causae
Eristische Dialektik: Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten / Arthur Schopenhauer 1831
[The Art of Being Right: 38 Ways to Win an Argument]
Steven Lee Myers, the NYT's bureau
chief in Beijing just use a really classical and poor way to manipulate.
"an international order, led by the United States, that is generally guided by principles of
democracy, respect for human rights and adherence to rule of law."
International order is not international law. LED by USA not by law. Generally (... No
comment), principe of... (again)
Yes. Really pure Propagandastaffel.
But a good news. Why is NYT in a need to manipulate?
...On a different note, i believe Steven Myers is just milling for a free ticket home and
a promotion which he'll surely get once he's expelled from China for fabricating fake
news.
Even during the worst of the cold war there were some respect and integrity on reporting
facts. MSM of today is fully weaponized and had gone full goebbels.
"that is generally guided by principles of democracy, respect for human rights and
adherence to rule of law"...
I haven't decided yet to either cry about the existence of such idiocies and such
propaganda driven Idiots and what it says about the human condition or scream because the
hypocrisy displayed continuously without shame and any twinge of self-awareness' becomes
unbearable.
Okay, then what can we infer from this lie-filed screed? I suggest that the NY Times and
its manipulators are against all the highlighted portions of this point b highlighted from
the 4 Point Joint Statement:
"Today, we will issue a joint statement on several issues of current global governance,
expounding the essence of major concepts such as human rights, democracy, international
order, and multilateralism, reflecting the collective demands of the international community,
especially developing countries . We call on all countries to participate in and
improve global governance in the spirit of openness, inclusiveness and equality, abandon
zero-sum mentality and ideological prejudice, stop interfering in the internal affairs of any
country, enhance the well-being of people of all countries through dialogue and cooperation,
and jointly build a community with a shared future for mankind ."
All the bolded text is what the Outlaw US Empire, its vassals and its propaganda organs
are against, as in opposed in a very proactive manner up to and including physical war waged
on nations that try to promote any of those bolded items. The one main feature the Outlaw US
Empire is dead set against occurring is the construction of a global community aimed at
promoting a shared, equitable future for humanity for that's a Win-Win outcome, not a
Zero-sum last man standing, winner take all outcome Neoliberalism demands. In other words,
the NY Times is serving as a sort of American Pravda by detailing what its actual
policies are without actually declaring them to be policies.
Ever notice that within US culture there's not one sport or game that has a shared outcome
between several different participants, that there's only one winner (team or individual) and
that its entire political-economy is modeled on that concept? That equality of outcomes is
always subsumed by equality of participation? That if there's not going to be any equality
overseas then there won't be any equality at home? And I can list many more. That all such
arrangements are promoting a domineering authoritarian ethos never seems to dawn on far too
many--I'm the head of the household so you must do as I say. We don't care if 80% of the
public demand universal single payer health insurance, an end to forever wars, clean water
for our communities, clean air to breathe, freedom from mass shootings, freedom from police
riots, and so forth and so on. The NY Times and its controllers don't want anything of the
sort for the US public or for anyone else on the planet. And that's the message it delivers
every time it publishes an article filled with lies, falsehoods, innuendo, fabrications,
etc., which is daily.
The NY Times ought to be called The Projector and sold with the tabloids.
Thanks b, when you wrote: "The New York Times author simply construed that."
I would change to: "The New York Times author maliciously construed that."
The "Five Eyes" countries, who just happen to all be Spawn of Perfidious Albion, seem to
be more and more infected with the virus of Orwellianism (itself an idea of Anglo culture).
Perhaps parallel to the out-of-control "Five Eyes" apparatus, or as a subset of it, there is
an unspoken out-of-control "Five Mouths" apparatus, of which the NYT is a key outlet ...
Let's hope other countries do everything they can keep that virus out of their systems,
and inoculate themselves and their populations well.
Steven Lee Myers used to work as a NYT correspondent in Moscow and Baghdad. He is the
author of the tome "The New Tsar: the Rise and Reign of Vladimir Putin", the title of which
alerts you to the tone of the garbage that wasted an entire plantation of pine trees.
"Our Nairobi chief has a tremendous opportunity to dive into news and opportunity
across a wide range of countries, from the deserts of Sudan to the pirate seas of Somalia,
down through the forests of the Congo and the shores of Tanzania. It is an enormous patch of
vibrant, intense and strategically important territory with many vital story lines, including
terrorism, the scramble for resources, the global contest with China and the constant
push-and-pull of democracy versus authoritarianism.
The ideal candidate should enjoy jumping on news, be willing to cover conflict, and
also be drawn to investigative stories. There is also the chance to delight our readers with
stories of hope and the changing rhythms of life in a rapidly evolving region."
Myers certainly knows how to jump on propaganda often and hard enough to turn into
something faintly resembling ... news.
"... Steve moved to Beijing in 2016 and quickly built a portfolio that was as powerful as
it was eclectic. His old world combined with his new one when he explored Russia's fury
over China's hunger for timber. He detailed Beijing's spreading crackdown on Islam,
analyzed China's exploration of the far side of the moon and reported on Hengdian World
Studios, an outdoor movie and television lot scattered over 2,500 acres in eastern China.
He also landed a rare interview with the Chinese actress Fan Bingbing after she was
embroiled in a tax scandal.
At each stop along his journey, he has taken to heart the advice of the former executive
editor Joe Lelyveld, devouring the local literature of his new home, not just the books by
foreign correspondents. Lately, he has been reading Yan Lianke, the author of "The Day the
Sun Died," and "Lenin's Kisses." He has an equally voracious appetite for Chinese cuisine,
which he is offsetting by training for his eighth marathon ..."
And here's our own Chris Buckley who joined Myers on his arduous tour of duty in
Beijing:
"... Chris [Buckley] is our resident China expert, having spent the past 20 years reporting
on the country. He went into journalism essentially as an excuse to hang around China.
Born in Australia, he decided to abandon a law degree and went to Beijing to study
Communist Party history at the People's University of China. After a half-hearted attempt
to start an academic career, his odd jobs in teaching and translating turned into
occasional fixer work for journalists, eventually in our own Beijing bureau.
He worked for Erik Eckholm and Elisabeth Rosenthal covering corruption scandals,
political infighting, the SARS crisis and the outbreak of an AIDS epidemic in rural China.
When they left, he worked for a while under a couple of obscure correspondents, Joe Kahn
and Jim Yardley.
After a seven-year stint as a correspondent at Reuters, he returned to The Times in
2012. He spent the first three years waiting in Hong Kong for a visa, camping out at the
Harbour Plaza Hotel for reasons that are unknown. From that perch, he wrote about the rise
of Xi Jinping, his corruption campaign, his directive declaring war on liberal values, as
well as the Umbrella Revolution. Since returning to the mainland, he has been a force
behind our coverage of the crackdown on the Uighurs in Xinjiang and the country's shift
toward authoritarianism, while also taking on a more personal quest about Sichuan
food."
Do you get the impression that these fellows jumped onto these cushy jobs for the food
junkets?
"... international order, led by the United States, that is generally guided by principles of
democracy, respect for human rights and adherence to rule of law.
Such a system "does not represent the will of the international community," according to the
Chinese.
We throw this statement into spectroscope to check if there is any weasel content, phrases
that sound nice but are capacious enough to cover not so nice meaning. Would it be even
better if the much tutted "international order" was not BASED on principles, rather than
GUIDED BY principles, and even weaker, GENERALLY GUIDED? Going further on that path we can be
INSPIRED by principles, GENERALLY INSPIRED, and then we can make a bold step to VAGELY
INSPIRED. Going further, OCCASIONALLY VAGUELY INSPIRED.
Not ashamed to manipulate stuff from CCTV about migrant work in Xinjiang into "forced
labour" and "BBC findings". Typical for western "journalists" in China, mostly sitting in
their apartments quaffing cheap liquor or going to the .. erm barber shops for a da feiji
(打飞机) ..
I will bring up a "human right" that rarely is discussed in the MSM: the right to relieve
one's bladder & bowels when traveling in public places. In many cities in the U.S., there
are NO public restrooms, not even in the railway stations and bus depots! Oh, sure -- all the
airports have them because they cater to the well heeled.
Here in the two biggest California cities SF and LA, one has to find a restaurant (good
luck during the pandemic) or supermarket or else a secluded spot. I live next to an alley
where the homeless people frequently dump, and we the neighbors have to clean it up because
the city won't bother.
The authorities claim that setting out Porta-potties can't be done because homeless
addicts would use them. WTF -- those people would do drugs in their own place if they had
one. But this isn't just an issue about homelessness, which is an enormous violation of human
rights in itself, but more broadly one of DECENCY that barely exists in this society.
The authorities claim that setting out Porta-potties can't be done because homeless addicts
would use them. WTF -- those people would do drugs in their own place if they had one. But
this isn't just an issue about homelessness, which is an enormous violation of human rights
in itself, but more broadly one of DECENCY that barely exists in this society.
CHOLERA is gonna get ya.
It is sad but what has happened to the USA through neoliberal economic rules based society
is the abdication of memory and learning over centuries.
There will be probably a long period of gradual decline of the USA empire and dismateling
of various aspects of neoliberalim in countires all over the globe.
It's evident that the "new world order" China wants is nothing more than respect for a
multipolar world and the international institutions in place meant to service this world.
The US has become accustomed to the notion that it is the "world" and that American
interests are everybody's interests even when America's interests harm their interests,
whether economic(Germany's Nordstream 2 or Japan's trade with China) or security(the DPRK-ROK
situation can never be resolved as long as the US interferes as a biased 3rd party) or even
humanitarian(see: Palestine, Libya, Syria, Yemen etc).
The pawns of the US empire will go on diatribes to basically outline a framework where
America is the end-all, be-all. Human rights, according to racist America. International
peace, according to militarist America. Fighting poverty, according to capitalist
America.
The only question for me has always been whether the blob of experts, advisors, and
government officials are maliciously pursuing this kind of global trolling or whether they're
actual believers of the delusion of American Exceptionalism. And the reason would be because
the latter are far more likely to cause exceptional suffering and destruction on their moral
crusade due to their arrogance in their fundamental "superiority".
If pride comes before the fall, the US is peaking in its arrogance and there's few likely
outcomes that don't lead to worse conditions.
The real question is not about his neocon delusions, which are pretty predictable, but about
the ability for the USA project global dominance in the decade to come.
Blinken is a marionette. And pretty much second rate even in that.
Notable quotes:
"... Let's consider this headline for a moment: "Blinken Accuses China of Trying to Undermine US-Dominated World Order." Blinken provides us with a definition of that "world order" in his own words cited in the article: "'... preserve the rules-based international order, in which we have all invested so much over the past 75 years , and which has served our interests and values well'." [My Emphasis] ..."
Let's consider
this headline for a moment: "Blinken Accuses China of Trying to Undermine US-Dominated
World Order." Blinken provides us with a definition of that "world order" in his own words
cited in the article: "'... preserve the rules-based international order, in which we have
all invested so much over the past 75 years , and which has served our interests and
values well'." [My Emphasis]
Clearly, he's referring to the rules put in place by the UN Charter. But as we at this bar
all know, it's the Outlaw US Empire for whom Blinken works that's the #1 criminal when it
comes to violating the UN Charter which is why it's "served our interests and values
well."
Now when we turn to reality, it become very clear that China seeks to uphold the UN
Charter--it's one of the foundational members of the newly established Friends of the UN
Charter Group that the Outlaw US Empire will certainly snub because of the reality of its
actual relations to that Act and Organization .
Indeed, what is being said by the very formation of that Group is a big NO!! to the
Outlaw US Empire's attempt to say it abides by the system it's continuously violated for the
past 75+ years. Yet, it's also clear that NO!! isn't being shouted out by global media
enough, particularly when Outlaw US Empire officials give such an excellent opportunity to be
rebuffed and ridiculed for their lies.
We have many good writers here who could take Blinken's words and turn them into an
indictment of himself and the nation he represents. That implies that writers for global
publications are just as good but need to examine the framing of their articles. Peace won't
come to our planet unless the Outlaw Bully Nation is daily accused for what it is and
does.
NATO is a distinct minority yet it holds the world captive in a terroristic manner. It's
well past time to stop groveling and kow-towing and to stand-up and call out the bullshitters
for what they are since being nice isn't getting us anywhere.
The "Russia question" appears to have surfaced in response to a March 16 US
intelligence
community assessment
that "Russian President Putin authorized, and a range of Russian government organizations conducted,
influence operations aimed at denigrating President Biden's candidacy, and the Democratic Party."
The 15-page public document is fluff. We heard it all before in December 2020, when fifty former intelligence officials
denounced news reports of Hunter Biden's corrupt ties to Ukrainian oligarchs as Russian disinformation.
The
New
York Post
claimed to have gotten hold of a laptop with smoking-gun emails to and from Biden's son. The voters never were
allowed to consider the evidence, because the rest of the media suppressed the report and Twitter blocked reposting of the
Post
expose.
In a December 4 column, I called this the "
Treason
of the spooks
."
By way of tying up loose ends, the intelligence community has now delivered an "assessment" claiming that "a key element of
Moscow's strategy was its use of people linked to Russian intelligence to launder influence narratives -- including misleading or
unsubstantiated allegations against President Biden -- through US media organizations, US officials, and prominent US
individuals, some of whom were close to former President Trump and his administration."
Those are weasel words. The Post published the text of Hunter Biden emails that, strictly speaking, were "unsubstantiated" to
the extent that the geek squad had not proven their provenance and the younger Biden hadn't owned up to their authenticity.
But that does not prove they were false, much less justify employing extraordinary means to suppress the reports.
Source:
New York Post
Apart from Biden's ABC interview, the nomination of Victoria Nuland as undersecretary of state for political affairs has sent
an unmistakable signal to Moscow and, more importantly, to America's European allies.
In early 2014 Nuland was taped on a cell phone call with America's ambassador to the Ukraine ordering the composition of the
next Ukrainian government after the Maidan coup, in the tone of a colonial viceroy.
Told that there might be
some difficulties, Nuland explained that the UN was being enlisted in support and said, "That would be great, I think, and
help glue this thing." She added, "And, you know,
fuck
the EU."
German Chancellor Angela Merkel at the time denounced the remark as "unacceptable." That sort of faux pas
normally would rate being assigned a diplomatic mission to the South Pole, but such is Washington's ideological fervor that
Nuland survived and resurfaced.
Nuland is a neoconservative, a former deputy national security adviser to then-vice president Dick Cheney, as well as the
spouse of Robert Kagan, one of the most persistent advocates of global transformation via the projection of American power.
"... It is natural for bullshitters to think the world runs on bullshit. In a away, that capsulizes the entire problem that the US' establishment is having now. They have been relying on bullshit for so long that they think that's all there is. ..."
"... It is natural for bullshitters to think the world runs on bullshit. In a away, that capsulizes the entire problem that the US' establishment is having now. They have been relying on bullshit for so long that they think that's all there is. ..."
“ I wish I could summon a strong argument against it, but I can find none.”
It is natural for bullshitters to think the world runs on bullshit. In a away, that
capsulizes the entire problem that the US' establishment is having now. They have been relying
on bullshit for so long that they think that's all there is.
The truth is we have no way to know what underlies our "reality", if anything. We don't have
the tools, the senses, yet. At the limits everything dissolves into probability mush, or the
lack of time for anything to get from there to here at the speed of light, or complexity we
have no way to impose order on.
If they want to go live in the computer, I say good riddance.
@ maahaa | Mar 24 2021 17:46 utc | 5:
“ I wish I could summon a strong argument against it, but I can find
none.”
It is natural for bullshitters to think the world runs on bullshit. In a away, that
capsulizes the entire problem that the US' establishment is having now. They have been
relying on bullshit for so long that they think that's all there is.
The truth is we have no way to know what underlies our "reality", if anything. We don't
have the tools, the senses, yet. At the limits everything dissolves into probability mush, or
the lack of time for anything to get from there to here at the speed of light, or complexity
we have no way to impose order on.
If they want to go live in the computer, I say good riddance.
"... It is natural for bullshitters to think the world runs on bullshit. In a away, that capsulizes the entire problem that the US' establishment is having now. They have been relying on bullshit for so long that they think that's all there is. ..."
"... It is natural for bullshitters to think the world runs on bullshit. In a away, that capsulizes the entire problem that the US' establishment is having now. They have been relying on bullshit for so long that they think that's all there is. ..."
"High-profile proponents of what's known as the "simulation hypothesis" include SpaceX
chief Elon Musk, who recently expounded on the idea during an interview for a popular
podcast.
"If you assume any rate of improvement at all, games will eventually be indistinguishable
from reality," Musk said before concluding, "We're most likely in a simulation."
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson agrees, giving "better than 50 -- 50 odds" that the
simulation hypothesis is correct. " I wish I could summon a strong argument against it, but I
can find none."
I guess that is one way for Musk to avoid the guilt over those people his coup in Bolivia
killed. They didn't really die because it is all just make-believe; a simulation.
“ I wish I could summon a strong argument against it, but I can find none.”
It is natural for bullshitters to think the world runs on bullshit. In a away, that
capsulizes the entire problem that the US' establishment is having now. They have been relying
on bullshit for so long that they think that's all there is.
The truth is we have no way to know what underlies our "reality", if anything. We don't have
the tools, the senses, yet. At the limits everything dissolves into probability mush, or the
lack of time for anything to get from there to here at the speed of light, or complexity we
have no way to impose order on.
If they want to go live in the computer, I say good riddance.
@ maahaa | Mar 24 2021 17:46 utc | 5:
“ I wish I could summon a strong argument against it, but I can find
none.”
It is natural for bullshitters to think the world runs on bullshit. In a away, that
capsulizes the entire problem that the US' establishment is having now. They have been
relying on bullshit for so long that they think that's all there is.
The truth is we have no way to know what underlies our "reality", if anything. We don't
have the tools, the senses, yet. At the limits everything dissolves into probability mush, or
the lack of time for anything to get from there to here at the speed of light, or complexity
we have no way to impose order on.
If they want to go live in the computer, I say good riddance.
According to the Austfailian media, it was a triumph. I kid you not. They will lie and lie
and lie again about Biden's dementia, until the bitter end, and at his stage, once the meds
lose their effectiveness, the end can come quickly. Perhaps he'll rip off his nappy and fling
faeces at the fawning presstitutes. Dream on. Or, as in the comedy, Bidet will mutter 'I'm
going to the toilet. I mean, I'm going to the toilet NOW!'.
Even before the targets in Yemen had been "legally" designated as
a Foreign Terrorist Organization Obama used cluster bombs to shred
dozens of women and children in a failed attempt to hit members of
"al Qaida in Yemen (AQY)".
.
The war crime immediately became a dirty Obama secret, covered up
with the help of the MSM, in particular ABC.
.
An enthusiastic White House had leaked to their contacts at ABC that
Obama had escalated the War on Terror, taking it to another country,
Yemen. This was December 17, 2009 only days after Obama had returned
from his ceremony in Oslo where he proudly accepted the Nobel Peace
Prize.
.
ABC was thrilled with their scoop and in manly voices announced
the escalation in the War on Terror.
.
The very next day ABC went silent forever about it, joining the cover up
of a war crime.
.
Hillary Clinton, by the way, committed her own act of cover up.
Covering her butt by backdating a memo.
.
The designation of a organization as a FTO (Foreign Terrorist Organization)
is not official nor legal until it is published in the Federal Register.
An oversight? Obama attacked Yemen before Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
had done the paperwork to make the killing legal?
.
The designation was not published until a month later, January 19, 2010.
Hillary Clinton back dated the memo she published in the Register with the date of
December 14, 2009, to somewhat cover her butt.
.
Obama's acceptance speech in Oslo for the Nobel Peace Prize was December 10th.
.
Yemen leaders agreed to participate in Obama's coverup saying it was their
own Yemen forces that had accidentally shredded dozens of women and children.
.
Obama was grateful to the Yemen leaders. The Yemen leaders were not
honored in Oslo. But, ironically, Obama ended his speech honoring women
and children, days before he ordered their slaughter.
.
Obama in Oslo, December 10, 2009:
.
"Somewhere today, a mother facing punishing poverty
still takes the time to teach her child, scrapes together what
few coins she has to send that child to school -- because she
believes that a cruel world still has a place for that child's
dreams.
.
Let us live by their example. We can acknowledge that oppression will
always be with us, and still strive for justice. We can admit the
intractability of deprivation, and still strive for dignity. Clear-eyed,
we can understand that there will be war, and still strive for peace.
We can do that -- for that is the story of human progress; that's the
.
hope
.
of all the world; and at this moment of challenge,
that must be our work here on Earth.
.
Thank you very much.
(Applause.)
.
One week later Obama shredded dozens of women and children in Yemen
and covered it up.
.
Here is ABC's Brian Ross using his most masculine voice to boast about Obama's attack: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bHcg3TNSRPs
.
Wikileaks cable corroborates evidence of US airstrikes in Yemen (Amnesty Intl)
https://www.amnesty.org/en/press-releases/2010/12/wikileaks-cable-corroborates-evidence-us-airstrikes-yemen/
.
Actual cable at Wikileaks: https://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/cables/10SANAA4_a.html
.
More at ABC [12/18/2009]: https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236 https://web.archive.org/web/20190624203826/https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236
">https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236">https://web.archive.org/web/20190624203826/https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cruise-missiles-strike-yemen/story?id=9375236 https://web.archive.org/web/20190725171012/https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cr
">https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cr">https://web.archive.org/web/20190725171012/https://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/cr
To go back to a previous BTL discussion on Patrick Cockburns recent article in
Counterpunch, Bidens missteps so early on are a very worrying indicator that his foreign
policy team is worse than just being malign. They are incompetent. Thats a very dangerous
combination.
I don't think the Russians, Chinese, or most other major countries (apart from Europe) had
a fundamental problem with Trumps approach. They understood him, and were quite happy to
ignore his bombast and threats and focus instead on what was happening in the real world. But
things are different for someone like Biden, and I'm very surprised nobody in his team seem
to realise this. When he talks on the record, its assumed that it is a reflection of a real
policy. At first, I thought maybe he was just doing the usual new guy in power thing of
talking tough to set the ground for later compromises (the opposite of Obama, who appeared
very weak to other leaders, and then just looked indecisive when his policies turned more
hardline). But that does not seem to be the case so far.
I've no idea what the final outcome will be, but I do think that this is one of those
points in history where things take a very sharp and irreparable change in direction.
Obviously, things have been brewing for years, but the ineptness of US foreign policy seems
to have created a strategic Russian/China alliance which will force many countries to make
some very hard choices about which side of the fence they are on.
On a related note, I woke up this morning to find that a speech by Lawrence P. Wilkerson,
who is associated with the conservative paleoconservatives is getting very wide circulation
in China (you know this has to be officially approved otherwise it disappears very rapidly on
WeChat. He makes a claim that the CIA back in the early '00's intended to use the Uigurs as a
sort of proxy army to destabilise China. For all sorts of reasons, I would doubt that, but it
is now widely believed among Chinese people, even those who have no liking for the CCP. The
notion that the Uigurs are a sort of third force within China, and as such need to be
destroyed now seems to be very deeply embedded in Chinese thinking, and the interference by
'official' western NGO's are undoubtedly making things much worse for them.
"[Wilkerson] makes a claim that the CIA back in the early '00's intended to use the Uigurs
as a sort of proxy army to destabilise China. For all sorts of reasons, I would doubt that,
but it is now widely believed among Chinese people, even those who have no liking for the
CCP."
Just curious as to what your reasons would be for doubting this. The CIA has been doing
precisely this all over the world for over 70 years. There is a clear pipeline between the
Uighurs in China and the CIA-supported "rebels" in Syria. The expatriate Uighur organizations
that are integral to the Western propaganda apparatus is supported and amplified by the NED
and other CIA fronts, as your last sentence implies. This is not to deny the historical
Uighur desire for autonomy in Western China, nor to defend Chinese policies toward them.
Rather, it is to acknowledge the CIA's use of ethnic tensions to sow chaos and division in
non-conforming nations *everywhere*.
1. The US has had little to no success in its many attempts to establish an intelligence
foothold in China. There is zero evidence, direct or indirect, that it has had any successful
contact with Uigur groups directly, although contacts via others, such as the Pakistani or
Turkish intelligence agencies are possible. If there was even the tiniest amount of evidence
of such a link, the Chinese would be broadcasting it from the skies, and not just
re-messaging out tired CT stuff. Chinese intelligence is far ahead of the US in that region,
so they would certainly know if something like that was happening.
2. Uigur groups in general such as we know about them tend to be as virulently anti
Western as anti Han Chinese. All evidence suggests that the brand of Islam that has been
belatedly introduced into those regions is essentially second hand Wahhabism (traditionally,
they were never all that religious).
3. Any such attempt could be easily countered by China – simply by dumping Uigur
radicals into Afghanistan to bolster the Taliban, or anywhere else that would create trouble.
The fact that they haven't done this strongly suggests that the Chinese themselves see no
link.
4. US military intelligence is often a misnomer, but even the CIA can't be stupid enough
to think that fostering another islamic state on the borders of Afghanistan is anything but a
terrible idea.
Of course, no doubt some mid ranking CIA officer may have circulated some report saying
more or less 'hey, maybe we can use those Uighurs or whatever they are called'. But thats an
entirely different thing from suggesting that there have been active links and a strategy for
using them to destabilise the borders of China. The reality is that the US has been entirely
unsuccessful in any attempts (when they've been made) to undermine China via internal Chinese
ethnic or religious groups.
Incidentally, the reliability of Wilkerson (who I actually quite like and who says some
interesting things), on that topic can be measured by his statement that the invasion of
Afghanistan was motivated by an attempt to stop the Belt and Road Initiative. It's quite
impressive intelligence if that was the case as the invasion predated the Belt and Road
Initiative by more than a decade.
Yes, I think the important point is your last one. It's not out of the question that on a
rainy afternoon in Virginia some junior CIA analyst amused himself by sketching out such an
idea, and one day the product may leak and be presented as "proof." But for the reasons you
give, the political leaders who would have to approve the scheme would turn it down, even if
it were physically possible. I doubt it would be, actually: from what little information is
publicly available, the US seems to be having little or no luck penetrating that area.
Thanks for the systematic reply. I appreciate each of your points, and pretty much agree
with the first one – including your comment about Turkish intelligence. But regarding
the others, the fact that we are talking about anti-Western Wahabist radicals does not mean
the CIA (or elements of the CIA or other military/intelligence operations) would hesitate to
weaponize them if possible. We did this in Afghanistan, Bosina, Kosovo, Iraq, Syria, Libya,
Chechnya etc. Indeed, we seemed to *welcome* the fostering of an Islamic State in Eastern
Syria, because the various jihadists were a means to destroy the Syrian government. When the
goal is to foster chaos and destruction in order to *undermine* an existing state, the
calculus of unleashing the head-choppers is different than if we were actually interested in
fostering stability in the region. I admit that such a strategy might sound insane to *us*,
but Einstein's definition of insanity seems to rule our National Security Establishment.
Not PK, but I would suggest these cases are not only different from each other, but also
different from the Uigurs. Essentially, there was a war going on in all of these cases, and
the US (and they were scarcely the only ones) decided to try to get a bit of influence by
arming one or more of the factions. This is a tactic which is as old as arms themselves, and
has a pretty spotty record of success, if that. Its advantage is that it is low-key and
doesn't require a massive presence (the classic case is the Soviet Union and the Chinese
flooding Africa with AK-47s and copies in the 1960s and 1970s). But the cases you mention are
very disparate. In Bosnia there do seem to have been some (illegal) CIA deliveries to the
Muslims in violation of the embargo, but these were very small scale and in any event the
Muslims were one of the major parties to the conflict, as well as constituting the de facto
government in Sarajevo, because the other ethnicities had withdrawn. Likewise, and in spite
of preening memoirs and films, the US influence in Afghanistan was quite small : the
mujahideen were already forming in the 1970s, and the only contribution the US really made
was to supply anti-aircraft missiles, which complicated the Russians' existence quite a bit.
But actually fomenting and arming an insurgency next to one of the three or four major powers
on the planet, with highly skilled intelligence services? There is stupidity and there's
downright insanity.
I the 1950s, the CIA and MI6 trained and armed the "Forest Brothers" in the Baltics.
Neutral Sweden and Finland were across hundreds of km of water. Land access was through
Soviet territory or satellites. There was no significant international trade or commerce in
the area at the time. Yet they had tens of thousands of well supplied (for that era)
resistance fighters that took a decade for the USSR to stomp out.
To suggest that today's CIA is incapable of stirring things up in a well-connected
Xinjiang when thousands of foreigners travel there, tons of business shipments and
international flights and road transport is a mystifying statement. Particularly after CIA's
decades of experience managing jihadis all across North Africa, Mideast and Central Asia,
more than a few being Uigurs.
And suggesting that the only thing the US supplied the Afghan jihadis were Stinger
missiles is far off the mark. It was a multi-billion dollar per year operation conducted by
the US with collaboration of the ISI and Saudis. All those tens of thousands of jihadis
didn't arrive by camels and make slingshots.
I agree "There is stupidity and there's downright insanity" in fomenting troubles in
Xinjiang. The US has already passed that test. Many times.
We are three generations past the 1950s. Not a relevant example.
The US is not even remotely as good as you'd have to believe to accept this theory. For
starters, we don't begin to have enough people with native level language competence, much
the less willing to live there long enough to be trusted. They'll take our arms, but our
directives?
It is in the interest of the CIA to take credit for all sorts of things where their role
was non-existent to marginal because funding.
I can't claim any great knowledge or insight into the region, but the notion that the
Uighurs were part of a grand CIA strategy, or that they have had sufficient influence in the
region to manipulate them into opposing China, just doesn't pass the smell test.
Unfortunately, like the notion that Covid is spread on frozen food, so far as I can tell it
is now considered 'a fact' by most Chinese, inside and outside the country. As a result, even
Chinese who strongly dislike their government are not at all bothered by reports coming out
of the region.
For what its worth, I knew an English guy who lived for a few years in Urumqi with his
Chinese wife about 15 years ago. He was virulently anti-muslim and didn't much like the
non-Chinese locals he met, but I remember at the time that said that what he saw around him
convinced him that things were going to end very badly for the Uighurs, the Chinese were just
waiting for the opportunity to wipe them out. I was in Tibet at that period (I was fortunate
to get a visa on the last year solo traveller were allowed in) and witnessed the way Tibetans
were openly abused on the street by Chinese soldiers. Even Tibetans said that the Uighurs got
it worse.
The US government and privately motivated US citizens have no credibility on this issue.
That means if anyone is going to raise it, it will have to be someone other than America or
Americans.
That doesn't change the fact of Great Han Lebensraum genocide-policy against the Uighurs
on the part of the Chinese Communazi Party. And Chinese statements about their Lebensraum
genocide against Uighuria are just as much hasbara as Israeli statements about
antiPalestinianitic persecution in the Occupied West Bank.
And if that purely-private opinion of a mere U S citizen makes any Gre
Softpanorama
Pat Lang says: April 8, 2021 at 9:54 pm
Ishmael Zechariah says: April 8, 2021 at 10:50 pm
Walrus says: April 8, 2021 at 11:22 pm
Thomas says: April 9, 2021 at 8:08 pm
Andrei Martyanov says: April 9, 2021 at 12:42 am
Peter Reichard says: April 9, 2021 at 6:28 am
john kliss says: April 9, 2021 at 6:35 am
JohninMK says: April 9, 2021 at 7:09 am
BillWade says: April 9, 2021 at 7:51 am
jonst says: April 9, 2021 at 8:34 am
Yeah, Right says: April 9, 2021 at 7:58 pm
jon stanley says: April 10, 2021 at 9:49 am
Seamus Padraig says: April 9, 2021 at 8:38 am
Terence Reeves-Smyth says: April 9, 2021 at 12:52 pm
Some Dude says: April 9, 2021 at 9:11 am
Per/Norway says: April 9, 2021 at 5:39 pm
phodges says: April 9, 2021 at 6:42 pm
J says: April 9, 2021 at 10:20 am
Ed Lindgren says: April 9, 2021 at 11:57 am
Patrick Armstrong says: April 9, 2021 at 4:15 pm
Deap says: April 9, 2021 at 7:32 pm
Eol says: April 10, 2021 at 3:20 pm
English Outsider says: April 12, 2021 at 10:08 am
Ms No PREMIUM 2 hours ago
odb 2 hours ago
@Dwaine.Castle852 2 hours ago