"This unconstrained Russian state also has destroyed Western wealth (happily stolen
under Yeltsin gang rule-- NNB) and discouraged investment by arbitrarily enforcing environmental
regulations against foreign oil investors, shutting out foreign partners in the development
of the Shtokman gas field, and denying a visa to the largest portfolio investor in Russia,
British citizen William Browder." - M. McFaul,
May 17, 2007 House Committee on International Relations, Russia Rebuilding the Iron Curtain
"To promote liberty requires first the containment and then the elimination of those
forces opposed to liberty, be they individuals, movements, or regimes. " - M. McFaul,
The Liberty Doctrine: Reclaiming the purpose of American power. Policy Review April
& May 2002
The
Liberty Doctrine Hoover Institution
What could be worse [for US imperial interests -- NNB] than a thriving Russian capitalist
economy helping to advance the foreign policy interests of autocratic nationalists in the Kremlin?
– M. McFaul,
Why the nationalists surged in the Russian election. - Slate Magazine" Dec. 16,
2003
"Write badly about Jews and you became anti-Semi, Write against blacks - racist,
against gays -- homophob, about Russian - honest, brave, liberal journalist."
This page is written in hope to help Russian language students to understand the country they are
studying despite the level of brainwashing typical for MSM in the West. And especially such phenomenon
as Russophobia which is many Western countries and first of all in the USA, is an official policy. Much
like in Carthago delenda
est(Carthage must be destroyed)
was during certain period official policy in Rome.
My own views were by-and-large influenced by Professor
Stephen F. Cohen
Russophobia is a phenomenon somewhat similar to anti-Semitism, just applied to a different national
group. It is a natural by-product of American
Exeptionalism and by-and-large replaced anti-Semitism in the US political discourse. As Arkadiy
Rukh observed (cited from
dr-piliulkin.livejournal.com ):
"Today, in the era of the total political correctness in the Western world there is only one
object for unpunished hatred, for realization of the inevitable phobias and other psychopathologies.
This is Russia. Today Russians occupy in the world that niche, which for many centuries was
occupied by the Jews: the object instinctive, illogical, animal hatred."
Russophobia is now very fashionable in Western MSM. Pages of European and American newspapers and
their comments columns, are packed with expressions such as "Putin is the new Hitler"; the "Russia is
a primitive country that should be contained at all costs"; "All Russian are mobsters"; "Russians must
pay the price for support of the Putin regime", the hysterical "Putin is Stalin, Jr., let's restart
the Cold War" and other similar cliché that clearly remind German propaganda against Jews. It also helps
to erase Snowden revelations from Western collective memory. The hatred of Russia is now " a new normal".
How and for what reasons did this happen? The first thing to understand is that this is not a new phenomenon.
British elite was adamantly Russophobic for a long time:
The historian J. H. Gleason, in his 1950 book The Genesis of Russophobia in Great Britain,
characterized the nineteenth-century English public’s “antipathy toward Russia” as the “most
pronounced and enduring element in the national outlook on the world abroad.” The sentiment, Gleason
concluded, was concocted by a manipulative, imperial-minded elite—and was off base, anyway, since
Britain’s foreign policy was actually “more provocative than Russia’s” in this period. Others concur.
“The world champion imperialists of modern history, the British, were in a permanent state of hysteria
about the chimera of Russia advancing over the Himalayas to India,”
While observations of Arkadiy Rukh are, in my opinion, absolutely correct (the article I cited above
is pretty interesting too and contains a valuable discussion) I would add a neoliberal edge of this
problem (The
Vineyard of the Saker):
The historical roots of the Russophobia of the American elites
Having said all of the above, its actually pretty simple to understand why Russia in general,
and Putin in particular, elicits such a deep hatred from the Western plutocracy: having
convinced themselves that they won the Cold War they are now facing the double disappointment of
a rapidly recovering Russia and a Western economic and political decline turning into what seems
to be a slow and painful agony.
In their bitterness and spite, Western leaders overlook the fact that Russia has nothing to do
with the West's current problems. Quite to the contrary, in fact: the main impact the collapse
of the Soviet Union on the US-run international economic system was to prolong its existence by creating
a new demand for US dollars in Eastern Europe and Russia (some economists - such as Nikolai
Starikov - estimate that the collapse of the USSR gave an extra 10+ years of life to the US dollar).
In the past, Russia has been the historical arch-enemy of the British Empire. As for Jews - they
have always harbored many grievances towards pre-revolutionary Tsarist Russia. The Revolution of
1917 brought a great deal of hope for many East-European Jews, but it was short lived as Stalin defeated
Trotsky and the Communist Party was purged from many of its Jewish members. Over and over again Russia
has played a tragic role in the history of the Ashkenazi Jews and this, of course, has left a deep
mark on the worldview of the Neocons who are all deeply Russophobic, even today. Somebody might object
that many Jews are deeply grateful for the Soviet Army's liberation of Jews from the Nazi concentration
camps or for the fact that the Soviet Union was the first country to recognize Israel. But in both
cases, the country which is credited with these actions is the Soviet Union and not Russia
which most Ashkenazi Jews still typically associate anti-Jewish policies and values.
It is thus not surprising that both the Anglo and the Jewish elites in the US would harbor
an almost instinctive dislike for, and fear of, Russia, especially one perceived as resurgent or
anti-American. And the fact is that they are not wrong in this perception: Russia is most definitely
resurgent, and the vast majority of the Russian public opinion is vehemently anti-American, at least
if by "America" we refer to the civilizational model or economic system.
... ... ...
Considering the never ending barrage of anti-Russian propaganda in the western corporate media
one could wonder how strong anti-Russian feelings are in the West. This is really hard to measure
objectively, but as somebody born in Western Europe and who has lived a total of 15 years in the
USA I would say that anti-Russian sentiment in the West is very rare, almost non-existent. In the
USA there have always been strong anti-Communist feelings - there still are today - but somehow most
Americans do make the difference between a political ideology that they don't really understand,
but that they dislike anyway, and the people which in the past used to be associated with it.
US *politicians*, of course, mostly hate Russia, but most Americans seem to harbor very little
bad feelings or apprehension about Russia or the Russian people. I explain that by a combination
of factors.
First, since more and more people in the West realize that they are not living in a democracy,
but in a plutocracy of the 1%, they tend to take the official propaganda line with more than a grain
of salt (which, by the way, is exactly what was happening to most Soviet people in the 1980s). Furthermore,
more and more people in the West who oppose the plutocratic imperial order which impoverishes and
disenfranchises them into corporate serfs are quite sympathetic to Russia and Putin for "standing
up to the bastards in Washington". But even more fundamentally, there is the fact that in a bizarre
twist of history Russia today stands for the values of the West of yesterday: international law,
pluralism, freedom of speech, social rights, anti-imperialism, opposition to intervention inside
sovereign states, rejection of wars as a means to settle disputes, etc.
In the case of the war in Syria, Russia's absolutely consistent stance in defense of international
law has impressed many people in the USA and Europe and one can hear more and more praise for Putin
from people who in the past has deep suspicions about him.
Russia, of course, is hardly a utopia or some kind of perfect society, far from it, but it has
taken the fundamental decision to become a *normal* country, as opposed to being a global empire,
and any normal country will agree to uphold the principles of the "West of yesterday", not
only Russia. In fact, Russia is very un-exceptional in its pragmatic realization that to uphold these
principles is not a matter of naive idealism, but a sound realistic policy goal. People in the West
are told by their rulers and the corporate media that Putin in an evil ex-KGB dictator who is a danger
for the US and its allies, but as soon as these people actually read or listen to what Putin actually
says they find themselves in a great deal of agreement with him.
In another funny twist of history, while the Soviet population used to turn to the BBC, Voice
of America or Radio Liberty for news and information, more and more people in the West are turning
to Russia Today, Press TV, or Telesur to get their information. Hence the panicked reaction
of Walter Isaacson, Chairman of the Broadcasting Board of Governors, the US outfit overseeing US
media directed at foreign audiences, who declared that "we can't allow ourselves to be out-communicated
by our enemies. You've got Russia Today, Iran's Press TV, Venezuela's TeleSUR, and of course, China
is launching an international broadcasting 24-hour news channel with correspondents around the world".
Folks like Isaacson know that they are slowly but surely loosing the informational battle for the
control of the minds of the general public.
And now, with the entire Snowden affair, Russia is becoming the safe harbor for those political
activists who are fleeing Uncle Sam's wrath. A quick search on the Internet will show you that more
and more people are referring to Putin as the "leader of the Free World" while other are collecting
signatures to have Obama give his Nobel Prize to Putin. Truly, for those like myself who have actually
fought against the Soviet system it is absolutely amazing to see the 180 degree turn the world has
taken since the 1980s.
Western elites - still stuck in the Cold War
If the world has radically changed in the last 20 years, the Western elites did not. Faced with
a very frustrating reality they are desperately trying to re-fight the Cold War with the hope of
re-winning it again. Hence the never ending cycle of Russia-bashing campaigns I mentioned at the
beginning of this post. They try to re-brand Russia as the new Soviet Union, with oppressed minorities,
jailed or murdered dissidents, little or no freedom of speech, a monolithic state controlled media
and an all seeing security apparatus overseeing it all. The problem, of course, is that they are
20 years late and that these accusations don't stick very well with the western public opinion and
get exactly *zero* traction inside Russia. In fact, every attempt at interfering inside Russian political
affairs has been so inept and clumsy that it backfired every single time. From the absolutely futile
attempts of the West to organize a color-coded revolution in the streets of Moscow to the totally
counter-productive attempts to create some kind of crisis around homosexual human rights in Russia
- every step taken by the western propaganda machine has only strengthened Vladimir Putin and his
the "Eurasian Sovereignists" at the expense of the "Atlantic Integrationist" faction inside the Kremlin.
There was a deep and poignant symbolism in the latest meeting of the 21
APEC countries
in Bali. Obama had to cancel his trip because of the US budget crisis while Putin was treated to
a musically horrible but politically deeply significant rendition of "Happy birthday to you!" by
a spontaneous choir composed of the leaders of the Pacific Rim countries. I can just imagine
the rage of the White House when they saw "their" Pacific allies serenading Putin for his birthday!
... ... ...
On one side we have the 1%, the Anglo imperialists and the Ziocons, while on the other we have
the rest of the planet, including potentially 99% of the American people. If it is true that at this
moment in time Putin and his Eurasian Sovereignists are the most powerful and best organized faction
of the worldwide resistance to the Empire, they are far from being central, or even less so, crucial,
to it. Yes, Russia can, and will, play its role, but only as a normal country amongst many
other normal countries, some small and economically weak like Ecuador, other huge and powerful like
China. But even small Ecuador was "big enough" to grand refuge to Julian Assange while China seems
to have asked Snowden to please leave. So Ecuador is not that small after all?
It would be naive to hope that this "de-imperialization" process of the USA could happen without
violence. The French and British Empires collapsed against the bloody backdrop of WWII, while did
the Nazi and Japanese Empires were crushed under a carpet of bombs. The Soviet Empire collapsed with
comparatively less victims, and most of the violence which did take place during that process happened
on the Soviet periphery. In Russia itself, the number of death of the mini civil war of 1993 was
counted in the thousands and not in the millions. And by God's great mercy, not a single nuclear
weapon was detonated anywhere.
So what will likely happen when the US-Ziocon Empire finally collapses under its own weight? Nobody
can tell for sure, but we can at least hope that just as no major force appeared to rescue the Soviet
Empire in 1991-1993, no major force will attempt to save the US Empire either. As David Rovic's puts
it so well, the big weakness of the 1% which rule the US-Ziocon Empire is that "they are a tiny
minority and we are everywhere".
In the past 20 years the US and Russia have followed diametrically opposed courses and their roles
appears to have been reversed. That "pas de deux" is coming to some kind of end now. Objective circumstances
have now again placed these two countries in opposition to each other, but this is solely due to
the nature of the regime in Washington DC. Russian leaders could repeat the words of the English
rapper Lowkey and declare "I'm not anti-America, America is anti-me!" and they could potentially
be joined by 99% of Americans who, whether they already realize it or not, are also the victims of
the US-Ziocon Empire.
In the meantime, the barrage of anti-Russian propaganda campaigns will continue unabated simply
because this seems to have become a form of psychotherapy for a panicked and clueless western plutocracy.
And just as in all the previous cases, this propaganda campaign will have no effect at all.
It is my hope that next time we hear about whatever comes next after the current "Greenpeace"
campaign you will keep all this in mind.
The Saker
I never was a Russian citizen, but I was and still am interested in Russian politics and, especially,
culture. My approach here reflects my natural skepticism. I am not content with typical coverage of
Russia in the USA press which reminds me the caricature on the USA coverage by Soviet press. I consider
Russophobia to be simplistic and counterproductive policy which serves to promote equally shortsighted
global imperial policy by the US financial oligarchy. Policy that has considerable cold-war inertia
and that is damaging to the USA long term interests. Most journalists are simply behave like paid attack
dogs (a good example here is Mr. Wallace: his interview of Putin was an insult to the American people).
Here I collected some of the authors who try to see more long term approach and try to present their
own understanding of the complex problem related to attempt to colonize the Russia. Or at least
advice a more realistic US foreign policy toward Russia. Of course it is nice to squash the old
geo-political enemy like a bug and I would be the first to admit that under Yeltsin West came close
to this scenario. Criminal privatization of Russian companies was hugely successful attempt to put an
end to the Russia as an independent country. Similar strategy was by-and-large successful in other USSR
republics like Ukraine, Georgia and especially Baltic countries creating what can be called New Latin
America.
But after Putin came to power, the attempts to convert Russia into yet another Latin American country
became gradually reversed (although this process is some areas went too far and to reverse it completely
is very difficult). As Ira Straus aptly put it in her letter
Russia, U.S. Media:
Nowadays attacking Russia has a politically correct tinge to it, since Russia is a white Christian
country. By contrast, attacking China still suffers from being susceptible to counter-charges of
racism and anti-Communism. Perhaps this is the source of the strange double standard in which Russia
is attacked just about any day for just about anything while China is virtually ignored day after
day, month after month for the same and far worse.
Attacking Russia is especially "correct" when it is a matter attacking a Republican Administration
for being soft on a Russia that is beating up on Muslims. One doubts that much of the American public
shares the media's sensibilities on this. Picture bubba listening as Dan Rather launches into Russia
for beating up on Muslim Chechens; he'll probably be telling himself, "there the liberal media go
again, standing up for our enemies and blaming our allies the Russians for fighting back". Among
Americans who write about politics, only Pat Buchanan and Ann Coulter dare to say such things, but
many more think it, in whole or in part.
The importance of adversarial culture for the media can be seen from the Bush I administration,
which truly was anti-Russian. The media bashed Bush I for this; it became ambivalent on Russia, taking
on a more pro-Russian hue than any time before or since. As soon as Clinton got a pro-Russian reputation,
the media switched back to Russia-bashing mode. It was Clinton-bashing that was the real point.
In other words, the media should not be taken as a barometer of U.S. government policies on Russia.
It is more often an indicator of the opposite.
What does it matter? A lot. The media drumbeat against Russia has an enormous impact on
public policy, not only in the US but in every Western country, and in Russia itself. It makes it
hard to think clearly, or even to see clearly. It fosters and fans conflict. It promotes a tit for
every tat.
First, the effects on Russians. The media play an enormous role in convincing them that we're
an enemy. They can see CNN, BBC and other Western media daily, at length; they hear from our government
only rarely, and practically never from the American people. They can see the Western media's implicit
premises far more clearly than the media themselves do. Mistakenly assuming these premises to represent
Western policy, they draw what would be the logical conclusion: that we are their enemy. If Russia
does in turn become an enemy again, the media will have been a major cause of it.
Second, effects on Western policy-making are just as damaging. Instead of helping the Western
governments do their thinking, the media block out most of the space for it. They make it
harder for the West to think out loud about such matters as how to build active alliance relations
with Russia, or how to overcome the remaining Cold War standoffs. They make it harder to follow a
steady course where cooperation has been agreed, They have done much to cause the West to be an unreliable
partner for Russia, an unreliability that democrats in Russia noted with profound regret throughout
the 1990s. They prioritize conflicting interests over shared interests, encouraging every minor divergence
of interest to grow into a major opposition. Their audience ratings flourish on conflict; and no
longer fearing it as risking war or nuclear incineration, they promote it shamelessly.
If we end up with a new Cold War -- and the risk is becoming a real one -- it won't be a small
thing. It would mean a nuclear superpower once again ranged against us and the world plunged back
into a bipolar disorder, only in more unstable conditions. In that case, the media will no doubt
turn around and denounce as "reckless" those who carry out their painful duties in the conflict.
The truly reckless ones, however, will have been those in this era who so freely did so much to bring
it on.
My personal views are close to views expressed by Anatoly Karlin in
About Da Russophile
As regards Russian politics, I make no secret that I’m a pro-Putin conservative. That said,
my views are moderate – while Western media coverage of Russia may be woefully biased and frequently
malicious, there are certainly plenty of things to criticize about Russia and Russians.
However, they must be grounded in in statistics, an appreciation of the viewpoints of ordinary
Russians, and a judicious comparative perspective (which is NOT equivalent to "moral relativism"
or "whataboutism" as many of the more hardcore Russophobe propagandists claim).
I think that the Western MSM fails on all three counts:
Their journalists tend to obfuscate facts and concrete numbers with rumors and assumptions;
they share their biases with those of the liberal opposition who are their most frequent interlocutors,
and reflect an ignorance of the broad ideological diversity across Russian politics and media;
and they frequently condemn Russia for things that just as prevalent or even more so in countries
considered Western and democratic.
This blog concerns with calling them out on their lies. As the one-time Guardian chief editor
C.P. Scott once said, "Comment is free but facts are sacred." While his newspaper has retreated
from this vision in practice, I maintain that it’s the most elegant encapsulation of what real journalism
(and punditry, blogging, etc) should all be about.
...I consider Charles de Gaulle to have done a great job, and consider Putin to be a comparable
figure in vision and stature.
Outside obvious "Lebensraum"
motives, it looks like western hate towards Russia rests on some deep inadequacy syndrome. Russia is
supposed to be some has-been power that is now of no consequence, yet it gets way more attention than
such a worthless state would merit. The amount of negative coverage since
Sochi Olympics
is bordering on war hysteria. That's dangerous pass as ideas became material things when they penetrate
deep into conscience of nation. Hate eventually tends to materialize.
The amount of negative coverage since
Sochi Olympics
is bordering on war hysteria. That's dangerous pass as ideas became material things when they
penetrate deep into conscience of nation. Hate eventually tends to materialize.
Russophobia as persistent policy of the US government and US media. And all this talk about Russia
aggressiveness, and carefully orchestrated related war hysteria in MSM is pure projection. It is the
USA which is the most aggressive international player on the world stage.
Russophobia is the unofficial but persistent set of behavioral patterns of the US government and
US media. It is clear that US tried to weaken and possibly dismember Russia out of geopolitical considerations
which represents a real threat to the US world hegemony. This idea on which the US elite is hell bent
since end of WWII and there were even plans to bomb Russia just after end of WWII.
It is the only military power that can annihilate large part of the continental USA, But there is
something deeper here. It is also an attempt to unify nation, which under neoliberalism became much
less coherent whole and in which 99% of the population hates the top 1% and the level of this hate is
increasing, especially in minorities and inner cities.
Russophobia is a crucial part of the US foreign policy. In this respect the US foreign policy is
so messianic
that it reminds me Soviet foreign policy (with the substitution of "triumph of democracy" for "triumph
of communism") and I wonder if the USSR really was a defeated party in the Cold War. This mentality
of "export of revolution" is the integral part of mentality of the US elite. The difference with Trotskyism,
if exists, is minor, and the key difference between Trotskyism and the US flavor of messianism probably
is connected with the smell of oil which radically increases the urge to democratize a particular country.
In any case attempt to export democracy in Russia never stopped since 1991 and under Yeltsin were so
successful that the country lost more in industrial production then during the second World War and
poverty became a norm for more then 50% of the population.
Carthago delenda est(Carthage must be destroyed)
attitude exists partially because the Western elites hate resource nationalists independently
whether those nationalists are leftist or conservative. Fighting resource nationalists tooth-and-nail
is an important, may be even critical part of neoliberal doctrine.
The latter is a civic religion
in the USA. That means the Russophobia in the USA has strong religious component, and is supported by
500 pound gorilla of the US elite propaganda machine. In other words there is a strong, consistent tendency
of demonization of Russia (Paul Starobin,
The National Interest Blog, August 28, 2014):
In any case, our taste for a country—favorable or unfavorable—shouldn’t dictate our foreign policy,
which is properly shaped by a cool calculation of our national interest. On these terms, America
is right to resist Russia if Putin seems truly bent on bullying his way to a redrawn map of Europe,
but also right to try to keep working with Russia on matters of mutual concern such as Islamic militancy.
And that same calculation will hold when Putin, as must happen eventually, exits the Kremlin, willingly
or unwillingly, whether replaced by a new autocrat or a more democratic figure. Today’s heightened
tension between the United States and Russia, conceivably the first chapter of a new cold war, with
Europe as ambivalent as ever about its role, underscores that Russia is likely to remain one of America’s
most vexing and formidable diplomatic challenges for a long time to come.
So the future of the presentation of Russia as a hodgepodge of unflattering stereotypes seems
bright. The naive liberal notion that the world has a teleological disposition toward a progressive
end—if only holdouts like Russia would get with the program—is deeply entrenched. Headlines datelined
in Russia—on corrupt oligarchs, or on control-freak KGB-generation political operators—will continue
to nourish sweeping criticism of Russians, from their leaders on down, as primitive and psychologically
ill. Probably no other nation is so easy (or so safe) to caricature.
And the “Russia Is Doomed” syndrome is bound to survive because Russia, alas, still matters. The
object of such concentrated anxiety over the centuries, far from heading down a path to obscurity,
remains a global force and impossible to ignore. So the worries will live on, too, as will the sublimated
wish to efface Russia. But perhaps the good news for the critics is precisely that Russia is not
about to go away. They will have plenty of grist for their mill for decades to come.
The issue is whether comprador elites subservient to the US are in power, or more nationalistic "national
sovereignty" guys. It is true that a nationalist elite can be as predatory as a comprador elite, but
a reasonable degree of national sovereignty is a prerequisite for social justice and it is difficult
to raise standard of living if your resources are owned by transnationals. The latter automatically
became above the law and do what they want with impunity.
The Russophobic views on Russia can be summed up in three words: "There is no life there !" This
simple formula invoke the whole complex system of "corrupt
journalism patterns" and powerful propaganda mechanisms
polished during 45 years of Cold War. Those journalistic patterns causes most western journalists (not
without help of their political handlers as independent journalism in the USA is a joke) treat Russia
as a failed state. Not simply a country that temporary dropped out of the world civilization, but the
country is doomed to such a drop by the several immanent features such as "national character", climate,
landmass, religion, history, etc.
From Dr. MacFaul quotes above it is clear that in the American media and among American politicians
Russia occupies a marginal position. After the Soviet Union is gone, they mostly cares about getting
assets on pennies per dollar (behaviour of criminals like Mr. Browder, whom McFaul loves so much, exemplifies
such an attitude) and to lesser extent about Russia military capabilities, which are still a risk. Although
I doubt that.
From the typical US behavior it looks like American politicians are not really interested in any
other aspect of Russian situation, other then energy resources (Khodorkovsky
is a new saint in the USA, probably for his failed attempt to sell Russia oil resources to US companies).
And he is new puppet in the show of finding the possibilities of regime change and installing a puppet
regime as they
unsuccessfully
tried in 2011-2012. They still miss Yeltsin drunk regime and Gaidar-Chubais neoliberal gang, which
almost converted Russia into kleptocracy
from which Putin tried gradually to extract it with great and not always successful efforts.
It all comes down to a set of cliché: Russia is corrupt (while in reality this is a immanent feature
of all neoliberal regimes and
first of all
the USA, the most corrupt neoliberal regime in existence) , does not respect human rights (unlike
Saudis) and does not play by the rules (unlike Libya rebels), is not democratic (unlike Qatar). Russia
seems to them so weak and uninteresting, not worthy of a real partnership dialogue. And is arrogant
enough not to agree with the status of vassal so she needs to be taken care of:
"To promote liberty requires first the containment and then the elimination of those forces
opposed to liberty, be they individuals, movements, or regimes. " - M. McFaul, The Liberty
Doctrine: Reclaiming the purpose of American power. Policy Review April & May 2002
The Liberty
Doctrine Hoover Institution
Such an ungrateful jerks, who jailed Dick Cheney best friend Khodorkovsky, squeezed this perfectly
honest guy, exemplary "the largest portfolio investor in Russia, British citizen
William Browder" (Who, BTW, was the USA citizen until recently, but suddenly changed his mind)
and so on and so forth. They should be "regime changed". It is like the relationship between schoolchildren,
when a bully see a threat on the school yard and acts preemptively.
The first thing that surprise me is a very well "coordinated" level of Russophobia demonstrated by
Western MSM. The degree of Russophobia in Western press varies very little be it Guardian, or NYT, or
BBC or WashPost. As financial oligarchy controls the MSM you can't expect anything different. They act
as a pack of dogs. Typical level is treating Russian as forever damned barbarians. Slightly more advanced
is treating Russia a legitimate playground for testing the controversial socio-economic doctrines like
shock therapy and a land were any foreign crook is entitled to get rich fast (like
Browder did ). But the essence is the same, no right for "national sovereignty", no right for any
"special way". Those concepts are simply outside a typical Western press journalists "template" that
their editors enforce.
Ridiculous comments populate the blogs, the op eds and the comment sections of most sites. But
what unsettles me more is the rabid Russian phobia (call it "Russophobia") which populates the
American press (liberal/conservative).
We never see things from the Russian side. It is always Putin who is up to no good, Vladimir,
the monster, the balding fool with no shirt flexing his muscles. This is not the Cold War, yet
we have not shed our Cold War biases.
Russophobia is a form of racism and studies of other forms of racism such as anti-Semitism are applicable
here.
It is a prejudice against, hatred of, or discrimination against Russian people as an ethnic, religious,
or racial group. In Baltic states it is close to regime of Apartheid. In Ukraine it has a form of
suppression
of Russian language and culture
I have an impression on the personal level sincere and acute Russophobia (not to be mixed with Russophobia
as a official line ) can be a compensation mechanism (classic Adorno). I am not talking here about ideological
prostitution typical for MSM journalists. But on individual level it looks like projection not that
different from other national bigotry and the undisputable and provable fact is that the USA and, especially,
Great Britain MSM serves as an "Incubator of hatred" toward Russia. Of course this also tells something
very important about the US/GB governments.
I suspect that those who adopt Russophobia position not for money (let's call them "sincere Russophobes")
have a personality of sectants/fanatics in a very deep sense of this word. Or like Eric Hoffer called
them "True Believers" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer).
For though ours is a godless age, it is the very opposite of irreligious. The true believer is
everywhere on the march, and both by converting and antagonizing he is shaping the world in his own
image. And whether we are to line up with him or against him, it is well that we should know all
we can concerning his nature and potentialities.
In a way sincere Russophobe's are almost extinct minority (but still can be found among Ukrainian
nationalists ;-).
There a legion of "Russophobes for money". People who are profiting personally from Russophobia nonsense
they spew. This is common among all those people who are far from the sharpest tools form the box. As
a result they try to occupy a niche that is still available and earn living in such a disgusting way.
At best they are average with very few exceptions (Belkovski might be one exception). In a way we
can view it as a survival tactic of people with mediocre talent in conditions of high competition.
Similar displacement into obscure niches can be observed for mediocre people in other professions.
This "Russophobia for money" is common among all those people who are far from the sharpest tools
form the box. As a result they try to occupy a niche that is still available and earn living in such
a disgusting way.
"Russophobia for money" is common among all those people who are far from the sharpest
tools form the box. As a result they try to occupy a niche that is still available and earn living
in such a disgusting way.
Cold War II is rooted not in Ukrainian event (The EuroMaydan coup d'état
was organized by the USA and Western powers; Crimea was only a pretext) but is closely connected with
the neocon attempts to slow down the pace of Russia modernization and secure Russia status as resource
vassal of the USA. Here is a part of discussion from Kremlin Stooge that touch this theme in relation
to Skolkovo techno-park.
This is a very apt comment and I wish that your observation comes true. But the problem is
that as you :
"The forces arrayed against Russia are sufficiently formidable and sufficiently unrelenting
"
First of all the West is rich enough to finance substantial fifth column, especially fifth
column media (official $70 millions for support of NGO and "alternative" press is just
a tip of iceberg). That’s the essence of neo-colonialism do nothing new here. Also a large part
of elite is already linked to the West and is not interested in any confrontation. Nothing new
here too.
So the discussion about what level of state capitalism is beneficial (or where Medvedev should
stop with his "second liberalization") is complex and far from purely technical one. External
forces should be taken into account and once in a while liberalization companies to placate the
West are not completely bad idea no matter how you view neoliberalism: state capitalism requires
periodic "purges" (Stalin well understood that) and "liberalization" and, especially "fight
with corruption" provides perfect pretext for purges. If one looks at some Medvedev’s
actions from this angle and you might well come to conclusion that it might be not complete sell-off
but a more complex game.
In situation when you need to purge excesses of state capitalism West can serve as a natural
ally and in such situation slogan of cat Leopold "Rebyata davayte zhit’ druzhno" (Let’s
be friends) suddenly became politically viable at least among the pro-Western part of the elite.
And the idea of periodic moving the pendulum from "higher statism" to "higher
private enterprise support" in order to avoid stagnation, say, each seven-ten year period
is not completely absurd. The main question is whether the process runs out of control or not.
Another possible contention point is that sooner of later oil flow will start diminishing and
with it revenues will also start dropping. Currently there are too few industries that can replace
the flow the oil dollars. Attempt to revitalize some of the existing heavy industries under the
flag of liberalization, if done clever is not a bad idea.
And as much as everybody here hates neoliberalism it is very clear about who should be the
victim and provides an ideological justification for cruel actions against own population. Like
Bolshevism, it proved to be an extremely potent weapon of convincing population to act against
their own economic interests (see
What’s the matter with Kansas
for details). Perfect tool for the brainwashing "peasants" if you wish, very important when
"Pryanikov sladkih vsegna ne hvataet na vseh" (Okudzhava ).
April 13, 2011 at 8:50 pm I believe the oil money will go on for some time yet. Current practices
are sloppy and inefficient, and more oil could be realized with better, more modern techniques,
as well as new discoveries coming online. However, an early start on overhauling general business
practices would be time and money well spent.
Medvedev should draw a lesson from Skolkovo. This is a project he has personally sponsored
and touted as Russia’s official debut in the high-tech sector. Western response, overall,
has been withering and contemptuous, although some major commercial figures (such as Microsoft)
have offered early investment optimism. Collective opinion seems to be that Russia will
use the new tech city as a base from which to steal foreign technology secrets from investors,
or that it will be a dismal failure because Russians have no real ideas of their own.
The west is likely to greet other initiatives by Medvedev in the same manner – hearty laughter,
followed by offers to come in and make western-style changes for him, in exchange for certain
considerations.
You are right: Skolkovo is fuzzy (what exactly is "high-tech") initiative as first of all Medvedev
can’t abolish brain-drain and that what will happens with the most talented researchers. The only
realistic bait he has is blocking the companies from entering Russian market unless they provide
considerable degree of localization and require that some fraction of research be performed in
such parks. That’s a variant of policy that China successfully used. But if Russia joins WTO,
tariff barriers to protect domestic producers in vital sectors will be more difficult to erect.
At the same time autarky does not work either. So maneuvering between those Scylla of globalization
and Charybdis of autarky requires top political skills from the captain of the ship.
Some sectors of Russian heavy industry already are proved abroad and products already have
some competitive advantage and export markets. That’s where this comparative advantage needs to
be preserved and enhanced with help of techno-parks. State subsidized R&D is really important
here and can be provided via small university based local techno parks. This would an excellent
employment opportunity for most talented students who otherwise might emigrate and such parks
not necessary need any foreign participation. This is especially important if company is partially
state owned, as this along with having reps at the board that protects the investment. OK, I would
agree, that it’s not necessary need to be people on minister level. It would be sad if he really
wants not to reform or improve, but to dismantle state capitalism.
The real problem here that without oil revenue Russia gets into zugzwang. Hopefully, as you
noted, that will not be soon.
Yes, you’re right about Skolkovo; I did a piece on it awhile back (here)
and Chinese tech parks were cited as an example. It’s funny how the west is all gaga over China,
and just brushes off the fact that China has a considerably more predatory business model than
does Russia; China shamelessly raids the west for business information and constantly tests
them for weaknesses which might be exploited. But, obtusely, it’s Russia that’s held up
as the consummate corporate raider.
I believe if Russia were allowed to join the WTO, fewer barriers would be necessary. There’s
no reason foreign companies shouldn’t have to contribute to the local economy, but they should
receive tradeoffs as well such as low corporate tax rates, and that was one of the considerations.
Medvedev seems determined that Skolkovo will succeed, while some elements in the west are just
as determined it will be a failure. We’ll see. Russia is a world leader in medical research, and
I understand that will be a big part of Skolkovo as well.
It is difficult to say where Putin's brand of mixture of neoliberal and state capitalism get him
and Russian people. I would say that the answer is "reserved no". Currently Russia, while opposing the
US hegemony does not provide an alternative economic model. And that's the weakness of "Putinism".
Un amable lector de este blog ha realizado un resumen en inglés de nuestro artículo Las catedrales
del kremlin y el capitalismo multipolar; es un resumen diferente al que nosotros hubiéramos hecho,
pero de interés sin duda alguna. Ha sido publicado como apoyo a una pregunta en un coloquio con el
economista ruso Mikhail Khazin organizado por The vineyard of the saker. Publicaremos aquí la respuesta.
Question: Does Russia represent an alternative to the current western economic/social model?
Or is this view an illusion based only on the conflict between some traditional vs. post-modern values?
/ Arturo
For context to the question I will provide a translation / paraphrase / summary of some key points
in the following article Las catedrales del kremlin y el capitalismo multipolar
The article contains and numbers many more points (36 in total) but I have translated/summarized
only the first 14 (the rest is provided is a very raw translation --NNB)
Moscow cannot defeat the American plans – i.e. the Anglo Zionist world elite – without
contradicting the class interests of its own elites (Russian oligarchs): This is impossible
because the system of sanctions and the blocking of access to their accounts and assets in the
West generates such contradictions in the Russian power elites that, in practice, it prevents
them from reacting adequately; it puts them on their knees before the America.
Russia *could* resist those plans, since it possesses the strength, sense of identity,
historical memory and material resources to do so. But in order to do so, its ruling elites would
have to take measures that would affect their own class status within both the Russian system
and the international system. And we can see that these are measures they are not willing
to take. On the other hand, the Anglo Zionists suffer no such internal contradiction. Quite the
opposite, in fact: Their own interest as the supporting base of the globalist hyperclass necessarily
forces them to maintain the challenge to the end.
By the term Anglo Zionists, in this analysis, we mean the dominant power group whose territorial
and military base resides in the United States, and whose center originates in the historical
and social links of the Anglo-American oligarchies, branching off to other historical central
metropolis in Europe or other power centers in different parts of the world.
The concept is made up of two elements that must be explained: the first, the “anglo” reference,
has to do with the North American British connection [...] the second, the “zionist” reference,
has to do with the interconnection among the economic and financial power groups that maintain
various kinds of links with Israel. It is not so much a reference to ethnic origin, but rather
to orientations as groups or lobbies of political and economic interests. A good part of this
Zionist component consists of people who are neither Israelis nor Jews, but who feel identified
with the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, Britain and other countries. Thus the term “zionist”
referees here to an ideology, not to an ethnic origin.
The Anglo elites on both sides of the Atlantic have evolved from being national elites
to being the executive base of a world Hyperclass made up of individuals capable of exerting a
determining influence in the most powerful nation, the United States.
The result of the Anglo Zionist line of attack is that the contradiction and internal struggle
is now occurring in Moscow between those who have already chosen to sell out and those who have
not yet found the time to realize that a multipolar global capitalism is not viable.
In this context, recovering Crimea was a mirage, an illusion.
If we compare the implications of the Maidan coup in Kiev with the liberation of Crimea, we
see that the strategic defeat implicit in losing Ukraine as an ally is of such magnitude that
everything else pales by co s (all of them) in Kiev was so gigantic that its implications are
frightening. It was either a failure or something even worse. In any case, the Crimea affair was
merely a small episode in a confrontation that Russia is losing.
Russia arrived very late at modern capitalism, and that is why its current elite will
be unable to occupy a space among the globalist elite without paying the necessary toll, which
is none other than renouncing its territorial power base – its country and its access to
and control of its energy resources and raw materials.
Stubbornly maintaining the dispute in trying to obtain a multi-polar capitalism, leads necessarily
to a intra-capitalist confrontation, as it did in 1914-1918. And because of the nature of the
current actors, nuclear powers … it brings the conflict to 2.0 war versions (color revolutions)
All attempts by Russia to develop a hypothetical line of response based on similar strategies
(i.e. mobilizing a social response based on discontent) have no future, because Russia does
not represent an alternative social model, not even in the realm of Illusion of Hope. It
can only elicit some empathy from those who reject the American domination, but here the class
contradictions come into play again, because it is not enough to oppose Washington merely on political-military
grounds, since the key to global power resides in the financial and military structures that
enable global control and plunder: World Trade Organization, IMF, Free Trade agreements, World
Bank, NATO… these are entities in relation to which Russia only shows its displeasure at
not being invited to the table as an equal, not accepting that because it arrived late at modern
capitalism, it must play a secondary role. On the other hand, Russia is ignoring the deep contempt,
bordering on racism, that things Slavic generate among Anglo Zionist elites.
In order to be able to fight the 2.0 versions of war that are engineered today, an alternative
social model is needed. Alternative not only in regard to the postmodern vs. traditional
sets of values, but fundamentally in regard to the social model that stems from the modes of production.
In the postmodern vs. traditional conflict, Russia tends to align with the most reactionary values.
And in regard to the social struggle, they don’t want to enter that fray because they renounced
it long ago. They renounced the entire Soviet Union, which they destroyed from within.
The contradictions and the dialectical nature of reality have their own logic, however. Thus,
a coup in Kiev and the widespread appearance of Nazi symbols in the streets of Ukraine was all
that it took to induce a spontaneous reaction in the Slavic world. The popular resistance in the
Donbass took strong root thanks to the historic memory of the people’s of the old USSR and its
war against fascism.
If Russia were to abandon Novorossia to the oligarchs and their mafias, the world’s “left”
– or whatever remains of it — would come to scorn post-Soviet Russia even more than it already
does. In the months following the brave action in Crimea and the heroic resistance in the Donbass,
many people around the world looked to Moscow in search of some sign that it would support the
anti-fascist and anti-oligarchic resistance, even if only as an act of self-defense by Moscow
against the globalist challenge. If it finally abandons Novorossia, the price in terms of loss
of moral prestige will be absolute.
A support of the left has not been sought, but that is a collateral consequence of the character
of class struggle open that has been given in the Donbas, where Russia has been forced to provide
some assistance that would prevent the genocide at the hands of the fascist Ukrainian.
Cuando say left, we refer logically to the one who has expressed their support to the struggle
of people in the Donbas, as it is very difficult to consider the "left" to those who have preferred
to remain silent or to have directly been complicit in the assault, and the coup in Kiev.
The degradation of the left as politically active social force is very intense, their structures
are embroiled in the collapse, or in the confusion, when not literally corrupt. Then related to
both socialist parties since 1914 and the communists, at least from the time of fracture of 1956.
The social changes experienced in Europe with the systems of welfare state, based on the elevation
of the standard of living of the working population and the obtaining of social peace by sharing
the power with the trade unions are at the base of the post-industrial society and the resulting
profound changes of values.
The suicide of the USSR in 1989-93 marked a brutal global change , in which the balance which
was preserved during the cold war was broken. That led to the capitalist elite in the west, which
we are calling the Anglo-Zionists, to the suspension of the social pact (forced abandonment of
New Deal), that gave rise to the welfare state and the emergence stark reality of a global power
of capitalists without systemic opposition . Today the whole neoliberal globalization system of
capitalism is in danger by the depletion of the natural resources. And to sustain this mode of
production, they need to speed up territorial domination in the form of control and access to
resources of other countries. Now there no space in the global system for spaces, which are managed
autonomously even to a certain level.
The system of global domination, capitalism, ruling elites with a territorial basis in the
area of Anglo-American, global parasitic Hyperclass and depletion of resources, as well as cannibalization
of the other nations, in the midst of troika of crisis of climate change, peak of the energy and
raw materials shortages. those three factors that challenge the current globalization framework
... And the crisis of Novorossia, been demonstrated both impotence and the lack of real political
autonomy of Russian elite with the respect to the dominant power in neoliberal worlds order..
The new citizen movements in the western world are not so much resistance movements as samples
of the discontent of the middle classes in precarious position of marginalization and/or social
trance. This protest led to a "Maidans" which are not permanent and does not question the basis
of the system. The participants seems to believe that it is possible to restore the old good world
of the welfare state.
The western movements are brainwashed by messages emanating from the headquarters of Democratic
party of North America, the propaganda anarcho-capitalist and the various networks of ideological
interference, are managing to break the bonds of historical memory that unite the struggles of
the past with the present, de-ideologize the struggles and conflicts and to deny the tension left
and right, isolating the militants -- or simple citizens who feel identified with the values of
the left - of the masses who are suffering in the first place casualisation. At the heart of this
new "left" are leaders that are co-opted voices, pseudo-intellectuals who destroy the words and
empty of content of key concepts in a way that the alienation of the masses demonstrate at the
language itself, thus preventing putting a real name to social process and things, and to identify
the social phenomena.
Viva to Russia, which the only country which eve in a weak form decided to fight neoliberal
world order and position itself as an anti-imperialist force... It is interesting to observe the
current great moral confusion in political landscape of the societies in decay. Confusion which
have been stimulated by Moscow actions. As the result some the far-right groups that are simultaneously
anti-US that anti-Russian now support Moscow. Also some part of Russia far-right political groups
got the sympathy and support of factions of the anti EU far right forces in France, the Nazis
of the MSR in Spain, and from small groups of euro-asianists. This line of political affiliation
will allow them to simply join the Russia failure [to find alternative to monopolar neoliberal
capitalism] and might well discredit then more profoundly in the future.
The euro-asianists forces technically speaking are reactionary forces, neoliberal forces which
is comparable to the worst of the worst in the western world. Moreover, they do not have any way
to solve the main contradictions that arise in the current neoliberal model in the terms of class
and dominance of Anglo Zionist global elite.
Euro-Asianism is just a suitable ideology for the construction of Russian national idea for
those who seeks to achieve lease to life for Russia sovereignty on the world stage. It is the
actual proof that Russia has come too late to globalised capitalism and fascism...
Huttington and his war of civilizations cynically exploit this confrontation on Anglo Zionist
elite and newcomers, redefining it along the idea of the clash of civilizations which avoid using
the notion of class and thus is ideologically false. Alexander Duguin who promote similar ideas
quite seriously just shows the degree of degeneration of the Russian intelligentsia, which oscillates
between serving as comprador class to the global Anglo Zionist elite and the repetition (as a
farce, and with 75 years of delay ) of fascist reactionary revolutions in Western Europe, which
were phenomenon of the interwar period (rexistas in Belgium, Croix de feu in France, CruzFlechados
in Hungary, Requetés and Falangistas in Spain).
The globalist elite offered a solution formulated in class terms, as it could not be another
way: in the best cases, they proposes the co-optation to a handful of members of the Russian elite
as deserving members of the new global Hyperclass, but this path is opened only the very very
rich, and the pre-condition is the delivery of the country to plunder, where the global elite
certainly would have need of some compradors which will be more or less adequately compensated
depending on their achievements and sacrifices in the name of global neoliberal domination.
The part of the power elite of Russia, which managed to expel the western compradors of the
Yeltsin era, and rein in the oligarchs then, had tried with some success to regain control of
the territory of the country. The illusion of the members of this part of the power elite -- basically
the security services, both civil and military, and various synergies of those with the military-industrial
lobby -- is that it would be enough to neutralize the Russian fifth column of the Anglo Zionists
to take back control of their territorial base of power. this idea is going to be shredded into
pieces when it enter into contradiction with the reality of the class struggle and interests of
the elite at the global level. Russia is, for its size, influence, and resources, so huge that
a line of action based on the defense of its sovereignty strategic enters in collision with the
global power of neoliberalism. And that why it attracts disproportional reaction of the Anglo
Zionists
Supporters of Anglo Zionists that are ready to consent to a German-Russian alliance or Russia-EU
alliance that give the viability of a idea of mutually beneficial co-development of both Russia
and Europe are forgetting that such an action would require European sovereignty. Which is was
non-existent iether on the level of the EU, or on the level of member states. The penetration
of the Atlantism in Europe is already systemic. In the old European states there are still ancient
national traditions, which were based on the basis of cultural, industrial, economic, and political
identity. And they still run strong. But in the current situation for such states there no space
for the sovereignty as the dominant power bloc in the national elite as well as in EU elite are
Atlantists. Where this situation takes the Russian elite and the Russian state without confrontation?
A confrontation that they, on the other hand are not willing and are not able to pursue.
The multi-polar capitalist world had its lifespan which come to an end (exploded) in 1914.
In 2014, the globalization of the elites and the capital is of such magnitude that no serious
resistance is possible on the basis of some capitalist model. In those conditions the idea of
Russian elite ability to enforce change to multipolar version of the currently monopolar neoliberal
world is doomed to be a failure.
Zbigniew Brezinsky has raised things crudely and openly, unlike the ("fake") supporters of
perestroika, and their current heirs in Russia. Brezinsky know how to think in terms of the class
contradiction and knows perfectly well that the Russian oligarchy has directed its monetary
flows abroad, moved families abroad, and moved their investments abroad. That means that
Anglo Zionistscan disrupt any claim of sovereignty over the territory and resources
by simply pressing the local neoliberal elite, giving them to choose between their interests as
a class and their illusionary desire for sovereignty. Because in a globalized world, with its
brutal fight for the natural resources there is no possibility of maintaining both, except what
can be achieved in terms of direct anti-imperialist struggle. There is no space for the national
bourgeoisies in the XXI century. You can only have sovereignty if it is posed in terms of a rupture
with the actually existing neoliberal order of global capitalism, which, in its core is Anglo
Zionistsglobalization. This break does not have to be forced, but in terms of scientific
analysis of the social processes is a logical consequence of following this path one way or the
other. To claim sovereignty over their own resources and territory inevitably leads to confrontation,
and logical needs a break up and confront the Anglo Zionist empire. If you really want to achieve
the goal. And that fact imposes the logic of the relationships and balance of power in the world
today.
The claims of the BRIC countries -- to the extent that you do not question them -- is that
they have an alternative model to the dominant neoliberal capitalism model (Ango Zionist globalization
with the center in the USA) are doomed to be a failure. The efforts of the BRIC countries can
generate a lot of noise and discomfort for the West, but they can not break the global neoliberal
system. Those countries are rightfully fearful of their budget balances -- which are very fragile.
It can be even said that they are on their way to implosion sooner or later, due to the unbalanced
structure of their internal classes, including first of all their own elite.
The claim that it is possible to achieve the multipolar capitalist world (which Russia defends)
and which led to current Ukrainian crisis without confrontation is false. As soon as Russia wanted
to return to the global chessboard. as an independent player, they instantly saw opponents attacking
weak elements of their defense at the borders. Ukraine has been a defeat for Russia and the Crimea
is not a adequate compensation for loss of Ukraine. Now Novorossia is being sacrificed precisely
because the class contradictions that have emerged in Moscow and lack of desire of Russian elite
to go the bitter end.
The situation in the Donbas / Novorossia clearly shows the resignation of Moscow to the victory,
and their desire to avoid the clash with neoliberal world order. The fact is that Royal Dutch
Shell has already begun the fracking in the Donbas, the coup regime in Kiev are already internationally
accepted without reservations, the truce imposed in Novorossia has brought to its knees the armed
resistance to junta. All this leads way to deliver Novorossia to the hands of mafias sponsored
by the local oligarchs with friends in Kiev and Moscow.
Statement that the destiny of Russia was played in the Donbas is something more than a phrase,
It is a claim based on a reality, as the defeat of Novorossia would be the proof that Moscow had
not the will to struggle. The betrayal of the fighters and the hopes of Novorossia is the acceptance
of the defeat and might lead in the future to the victory to the Moscow Maidan, the same alliance
of compradors and nationalists using which as storm troopers the globalist elite achieved their
goal in Ukraine. If Novorossia is defeated, they can expect being able to push a puppet into the
Kremlin the same way. And not without reason. This summer, the heroic struggle of the militia
of the Donbas was the key element that forced the changes of the script designed for Kiev as well
as diminished chances of successful application of the same methods in Moscow. The Minsk Agreements
and the truce imposed by them are putting Novorossia on its knees, allowing for its destruction,
but this time at the hands of their allies. Sad spectacle for the Russian security services, which
were effective enough to organize the Donbas resistance, but now are useless and powerless before
the neofascist Kiev junta.
The struggle of the Donbas does not correspond to the strategic interests of the Russian elite.
They have been forced to intervene to prevent the horror of the mass murder of the population
of the Donbas at the hands of the extreme right. But the dream of a Donbas free of oligarchs and
with a sovereign state, committed to social justice for workers on this Slavic land are completely
incompatible with the post-soviet status quo. Only to the extent that there is a significant faction
of Russian elite aware of the contradictions of the global neoliberal game and who put their sense
of patriotism first can lead them to face the challenge that they face. Only in this case there
would be any possibility of resistance; I would say patriotic resistance, because we already know
no one at the top is able to think in terms of class.
While very unlikely - there can be a move from February to October in Novorossia. You would
say impossible. But he insurrection of the Donbas in March, logically was "February". In order
to achieve victory, to take full control over the territory of Donetsk and Lugansk needs creation
of the Revolutionary Military Council and suspension of the upcoming elections. which looking
to be a smokescreen for capitulation to junta. They need to declare that they are ready to resist
to the end. This output would be desperate move, without a doubt, and would represent the equivalent
of a new "October". The event which of it occurs would force Moscow to show their cards to their
own population. And perhaps it can help to generate a pulse necessary for the organization of
the fight with Anglo Zionists empire between the towers of the Kremlin. That would move the fight
toward more patriotic and popular goals, But this presuppose a lot of assumptions and first of
all that such a "Kremlin tower", which is capable of emitted such a pulse, exists. Only in this
case we can talk about achieving a real sovereignty. As Vasily Záitsev in Stalingrad suggested:
"Maybe we're doomed, but for the moment we are still the masters and lords of our land." In Novorossia
there are plenty of fighters who would agree with Záitsev, but they certainly lack political direction
and, now the lack the support of Kremlin.
The Russian objective is achieving a multipolar capitalism with a Russia united under a nationalist
ideology based on the manipulation of patriotic sentiment, Orthodoxy and various Slavic myths.
This objective is being challenged by the reality of the conflict, which should be defined in
terms of geopolitical goals. The reality is that the Russian elite would be allowed to control
their population as they wish, provided they renounce its sovereignty over territory and resources,
renounce their physical power base, i.e. homeland. This is the nature of the challenge. Putin
is mistaken if he thinks that the Grand Patriarch has the answer in their holy books. There is
not enough incense in the Kremlin cathedrals to mask that reality.”
Now let's discuss attempts to demonize Putin by Western MSM. They can be understood only in context
of rabid Russophobia of US neocons and their poodles in GB and other Western countries (especially in
Germany).
Being tactful of Putin is one thing that I would not criticize the US press for ;-). If only because
the track record disqualify them from lecturing, but because one simple fact: I remember how they covered
the Chechen disaster and how they covered Iraq invasion by the USA. I strongly dislike Chechen war,
as do most Russians. However, it is true that Chechen fundamentalists financed by Saudis have killed
hundreds of Caucasian and Russian civilians and were a real threat to the Russian society, whereas the
Iraqis were no practical threat to the USA.
Another problem with demonizing Putin is that no one in the US political system is willing to criticize
the policies of Boris Yeltsin, which ruined the majority of Russian people, falsified elections and
included criminals in his inner circle under close guidance of the USA. Sometime it looks to me that
the real Axis of Evil runs somewhere between K Street and Constitution Avenue.
And in addition most of US neocons who dominated the USA foreign policy establishment sincerely consider
themselves the only game in town. While understanding very little, or absolutely nothing about other
countries. And that is statement is equally applicable to neocons dominated MSM such as NYT and Wash
Post. American exeptionalism is uniquely blinding phenomenon.
It is actually pretty sad to read the infinite low of articles written without any desire to understand
the complex situation in modern Russia. Neocons analytics in regard to Russia is nauseating propaganda.
The logic behind such articles is invariably hostile. Moscow either weak or repressive or both. If Moscow
sees some processes as a threat, it is racist, if it just lets it happen, it is weak.
No good solution for Russia ever exists according to these people. And it would be better for Russia
and the rest of the world if it disappears from the face of Earth as quickly as possible.
Another influential part of world Russophobic community are Apartheid regimes established in Baltic
countries with the direct help of the USA government and, especially, USA emigrant organizations. Western
Ukraine also fit this scenario (and after EuroMaidan putsch Western Ukrainian far right nationalists
came to power).
Baltic countries refuse to provide citizenship to people of different ethnicity who lawfully lived
in them during the USSR period (which lasted half a century or so). Here is an insightful take on Russophobia
from veteran Novosty journalist by Pyotr Romanov
Ability to write about Russophobia dispassionately is similar to the ability to maintain dignity
when somebody unexpectedly poor a dirty water all over your head. However, as far as possible, try
to talk about this phenomenon, no offense. We will not resent the fact that the "Russian, according
to British press - the most stupid in the world." Smile at the argument that the "war against Napoleon
won the non-Russian, and lice." We will not discuss with the Japanese man in the street, which feels
an antipathy to us, among other things because all the cold storms come on the street it from Russia.
Forget about the Finns, who, according to Western opinion polls, do not love us more than any
foreigners. And this at a time when, according to domestic opinion polls, that the Finns have the
highest Russian sympathies.
What to do: love evil. In short, keep yourself in hand. It is better to remember the words of
George Nathaniel Curzon Marquis, Viceroy of India and at the time the British Foreign Minister: "Every
Englishman comes to Russia as Russophobe, and left as a Russophile" This means that in the basis
of antipathy towards the Russian lies ignorance and myths. Partly born of life itself, partly by
skillful professionals employed by our political opponents: there is such a thing as information
warfare. And this is not limited to the Soviet period, but can be traced since ancient times. The
disappearance of the Soviet Union did not affect Russophobia much. "New Thinking", which Gorbachev
dreamed about never materialized. There is also historical memory. If we talk about ethnophobias,
this is an inexhaustible source of poisoned water.
We can present many additional examples, but even from what has been said above, it is clear that
the problem is multifaceted and so deeply ingrained in the mind of a typical Western person (to say
nothing about establishment -- NNB) that for Russians it is better to forget about an illusion that
it can be cured or even drastically changed. Each countermeasure is only a palliative solution.
Thus we should not deceive ourselves - any countermeasure is only palliative. Russophobia glow
can be reduced, but to end it might be impossible as is the case with other ethnophoibias.
However, even to lower the level of Russophobia is a difficult undertaking which requires considerable
intellectual efforts and financial investments. In addition, the Russian professionals in the field
of foreign media (or propaganda, sorry for such old-fashioned word) are long time already listed
in the "red book". After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new government decided that the professionals
who know how to work with foreign media are no longer needed, everything will be done automatically:
our friends Bill and Helmut will help. In extreme cases, retired professionals can be without problems
replaced by the young and energetic sneakers merchants. It did not happen. Meanwhile, the bad image
of Russia means for the country significant economic and political losses.
When it comes to Russophobia, the questions usually turns out to be a surplus, but the answers,
even the most sophisticated, almost always may be subject to reasoned criticism. This is further
evidence of the complexity and ambiguity of the problem. For example, surveys carried out by foreigners,
record that in recent years the attitude to the Russian in almost all countries around the world
deteriorated. It would seem that there is nothing to rejoice, meanwhile, history has repeatedly argued
that a weakened Russia is far less negative feelings abroad than Russia on the path to recovery,
when she, like Phoenix, once again rises from the ashes. Thus, the sharp deterioration of perceptions
of Russia by foreigners can simultaneously be a sign that Moscow is perusing a wrong policy, and,
conversely, that is peruse absolutely correct policy. It is difficult to sort out.
By the way, if we were talking about the West here, it is curious to see how the West steps for
many centuries on the same rake. Whenever Russia is experiencing the most difficult times, Western
politicians, believing Russia is close to death, begin to seriously talk about her vivisection, and,
conversely, when the "deceased" Russia suddenly opens his eyes, the West falls into mortal fear and
hysteria. So it was during the Troubled Times, when the Poles, Swedes and British tried to split
Russian lands apart. Under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, when Russia was still weakened Western Europe
for the sake of preserving peace in its own backyard identified zones of expansion of the major European
powers: our motherland, according to this "peace plan", was granted to the Swedes. The only thing
that did not consider the German philosopher, mathematician, lawyer and theologian, Gottfried Leibniz
-- the author of this ingenious plan -- the birth of Peter the Great. By the end of the reign of
Peter Sweden ceased to be a great power, Russia become an empire, and a Russian soldier, frightened
Europe to such hiccups, from which it can not escape for a long time.
Then there was the defeat in the Crimean War, which, as it seemed to many European politicians,
forever cemented lag Russian from the outside world, but came to the liberal reforms of Alexander
II, who once again raised Russia from its knees. Later there was a First World, revolution, civil
war, and those event immediately generated Churchill plan to put an end to Russia once and forever,
dismembering her to pieces. And this project also ended in failure, but instead came back scared
the West Europeans almost to death, the Soviet Union.
Finally, the collapse of the USSR has created new hopes, and the emergence of a Russian helm of
Putin produced a new disappointment: hatred intermixed with fear. Here are typical in the West, the
view expressed by one of the Italian journalists: "The USSR is considered a country, lost forever.
The recent emergence of Russia as a nation state was a bolt from the sky. " And that's madam did
not know yet what order book of Russian defense enterprises in the past year increased by 61%, as
recently reported by Russian President. Thunder would be simply deafening.
In short, we are dealing with a déjà vu all over gain: the same way foreign press treated Russia
in Europe and after the Troubled Times and after the Crimean War, and after the Revolution of 1917
.
Of course, the fact that due to the fear of Russian bear whose jaws are in Europe, and the tail
is located in the Far East, simultaneously flourish Russophobia, does not make Russians happy. But
I personally, if we have to choose, prefer to have a strong Russia with a undesirable side effect
in the form of Russophobia, than the Russian bear's skin over the fireplace in some western office,
which the owner, proudly showing visitors, affectionately scratching behind his ear. Without experiencing
any of Russophobia!
Are there any tools that would provide the West at least a middle ground between a pathological
fear of Russian and not less pathological contempt for her? I think it is. All I will not enumerate
them all. But one thing worth mentioning is mandatory. Necessary, finally, once and for all clear
the historic debris, which is really to blame Russian. We can remember, say, Russian-Polish friction
because of Katyn. The fact that Stalin's regime committed a crime, we know the whole world, but Russia,
including the modern Russia, could not find the courage to tell the whole truth about the Polish
tragedy. If you want to, once again apologize, and most importantly to pass, finally, Warsaw, all
at our disposal documents. In the end, there are still living relatives of the victims, who have
every right to know how their relatives died. Why this is not done until now, I can not understand,
especially because the crime is committed not this generation, but fundamentally different, the Stalinist
regime.
At the same time, giving the necessary debt, in my opinion, in any case we can not forget about
our own claims. Unlike its neighbors, we all too easy to forgive, but it does not promote respect
for Russia. Yes, there was Katyn. But until it was no less terrible fate of the Russian prisoners
who fell into the hands of the Poles after the failure of the famous Tukhachevsky offensive of Warsaw.
There are undeniable evidence how they treated those prisoners, both in Russia and the West. Division
of assistance to POW in Poland of the American Union of Christian youth on October 20, 1920 noted
that the Russian prisoners were kept in deplorable conditions: indoors, totally unsuitable for housing,
with no furniture, sleeping aids, and most importantly - no glass in the windows, despite the cold.
In the prisoners had no shoes, clothing, medicines, not enough medical personnel, food. All of the
above, conclude U.S. observers, leads "to the rapid extinction of prisoners of war." Really dying
by the thousands. No wonder the Lviv newspaper "Forward" December 22, 1920 calls Tuchola camp a "death
camp". Thus, Katyn and Tuchola stand side by side. And it is necessary to treat this
and ask the Poles of repentance for the brutal treatment of Russian. By the way, we should not have
any illusion. About the same barbaric way the Red Army prisoners of war were treated, Baltic states
treated the White Army Yudenich forces which retreat to their land. They allowed to passed then through
the border in small groups, then confiscated all the weapon, after another mile all the valuables,
and then clothes. So they beat is on the based on ideology but simply because they were Russians.
Defending our ancestors who were subjected to abuse, we are seeking not only justice but also of
self-respect. Man, do not mindful of kinship, respect is not deserved.
However, even if it has been said above about Russophobia, only a small drop in the cap or a smallest
piece of a huge iceberg.
In addition, there is still the main problem, without deal with which all the fighting Russophobia
is meaningless. This problem is ourselves: our standard of living, our culture, the development of
our civil society, our internal and foreign policy, our military and economic power. Weak are always
subject to humiliation: that is, unfortunately, human nature.
Any countermeasures -- although without them it situation might get worse -- no matter how sophisticated
and skilled as they are, still no substitute for that, I'm talking about. So, first of all, to deal
with all of us Russophobia requires a healthy and strong Russia. The fact that in this country and
to live pleasantly, of course.
The old wisdom says, to be respected around, start to start to respect himself - a thing that
you have created with their own hands.
And there, staring, reconsider their views on the Russian, even touchy Finns.
The Western media even before the Ukrainian Maidan was broadcast events in Russia exclusively in a negative
way. Attempts are being made to discredit almost all Russian initiatives and projects, ranging from
the Olympics to the elections of the President, etc. For the implementation of anti-Russian propaganda
standard techniques of "projection" polished in color revolutions were used. That includes activization
via NGOs of the opposition media and opposition figures within the country. The set of "prisoners
of conscience" was created from academics, businessmen and politicians, who, for various
reasons, wished to leave Russia for the West. Corrupt businessmen, who escaped to the West to avoid
prosecution in Russia became prisoner of conscience and political oppositionist on the moment they cross
the border. Anti-Russian propaganda aims in stressing civilizational, cultural, intellectual backwardness
of Russia compared "advanced and enlightened" West.
The purpose of this propaganda "strangulation" of Russia is instituting "regime change" and bring
to power the second generation of compradors. As well as further dismemberment of its territory. Some
forms on internal conflict are supported as a part of destabilization strategy. With the ultimate goal
of second partitioning of Russia and the emergence of new quasi-independent States.
To understand the coverage of Russia in western MSM one needs to understand the mechanisms of war
propaganda. The latter is guided by the following postulates well known since the WWI (Falsehood
in War-Time):
1. We do not want war.
2. The opposite party alone is guilty of war.
3. The enemy is the face of the devil.
4. We defend a noble cause, not our own interest.
5. The enemy systematically commits cruelties; our mishaps are involuntary.
6. The enemy uses forbidden weapons.
7. We suffer small losses, those of the enemy are enormous.
8. Artists and intellectuals back our cause.
9. Our cause is sacred. "The ages-old 'God bless America' is playing once more."
10. All who doubt our propaganda, are traitors.
This topic is discussed in more details elsewhere, but a
good starting point is the book Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes (1965/1973) by French
philosopher, theologian, legal scholar, and sociologist Jacques Ellul. This book was one the first attempt
to study propaganda from a sociological approach as well as a psychological one. It presents a taxonomy
for propaganda methods, including such paired opposites as
political–sociological,
vertical–horizontal,
rational–irrational,
agitation–integration.
During World War II, Ellul was a leader in the French resistance after being discharged as a professor
from French universities by the Vichy regime. After France's liberation, he became professor at the
University of Bordeaux. He authored 58 books and numerous articles over his lifetime, the dominant theme
of which has been the threat to human freedom created by modern technology. In 1947, Ellul was appointed
chair of law and social history at the Institut d'études politiques that increased his reputation
as a social and political philosopher which led to the publication of his works in the United States.
Here is an abridged Wikipedia summary:
...."The Institute for Propaganda Analysis, inspired by Harold Lasswell" defined propaganda as
"the expression of opinions or actions carried out deliberately by individuals or groups with a view
to influencing the opinions or actions of other individuals or groups for predetermined ends and
through psychological manipulations".[3]
This definition seemed more accurate and was supported by others such as Goebbels, a German propagandist,
who stated, "We do not talk to say something, but to obtain a certain effect."[ Similarly
F.C. Bartlett holds an accurate interpretation of the goal of propaganda as not merely as an instrument
to increase political understanding of events, but to obtain results through action. Ellul supports
the idea that propaganda is made primarily because of a will to action for the purpose of effectively
arming policy made by the State. Leonard Doob, an American specialist, defined propaganda in 1948
as "the attempt to affect the personalities and to control the behavior of individuals towards
desired ends."
Unending definitions show the uncertainty among specialists and the inability of definitions to
encompass all that is propaganda. Just because the term propaganda cannot be defined with any degree
of precision does not mean that attempts to define it should be abandoned.
"Very frequently propaganda is describe as a manipulation for the purpose of changing idea
or opinions of making individuals 'believe' some idea or fact, and finally of making them adhere
to some doctrine—all matters of the mind. It tries to convince, to bring about a decision, to
create a firm adherence to some truth. This is a completely wrong line of thinking: to view propaganda
as still being what it was in 1850 is to cling to an obsolete concept of man and of the means
to influence him; it is to condemn oneself to understand nothing about propaganda. The aim
of modern propaganda is no longer to modify ideas, but to provoke action. It is no longer to change
adherence to a doctrine, but to make the individual cling irrationally to a process of action.
It is no longer to transform an opinion but to arouse an active and mythical belief."
...He holds that the main concern of propaganda through psychological influence is sparking
action to a desired response by developing learned attitudes. ....
Summary of chapters
Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes is divided into five substantive chapters discussing
Ellul’s analysis. Introduction
Regardless of the State, propaganda should be viewed as situated at the center of the growing
powers of governmental and administrative techniques.
"Differences in political regimes matter little; differences in social levels are more important;
and most important is national self-awareness. Propaganda is a good deal less the political weapon
of a regime (it is that also) than the effect of a technological society that embraces the entire
man and tends to be a completely integrated society. Propaganda stops man from feeling that things
in society are oppressive and persuades him to submit with good grace."[7] Chapter One: Characteristics
of Propaganda
Modern propaganda is a technique that requires an analysis of both environment and individual
to be subjected to propaganda therefore it is based on scientific analyses of psychology and sociology.
Sufficient understanding of these two areas creates the most effective propaganda and without the
scientific research of modern psychology and sociology there would be no propaganda. "Step by step
the propagandist builds the techniques on the basis of his knowledge of man, his tendencies, his
desires, his needs, his psychic mechanisms, his conditioning, and as much on social psychology as
on depth psychology."[8] 1.Part One: External Characteristics
Propaganda is first and foremost concerned with influencing an individual psychologically
by creating convictions and compliance through imperceptible techniques that are effective only by
continuous repetition. Propaganda employs encirclement on the individual by trying to surround
man by all possible routes, in the realm of feelings as well as ideas, by playing on his will or
his needs through his conscious and his unconscious, and by assailing him in both his private and
his public life.[9] The propagandist also acknowledges the most favorable moment to influence man
is when an individual is caught up in the masses. Propaganda must be total in that utilizes all
forms of media to draw the individual into the net of propaganda. Propaganda is designed to
be continuous within the individual's life by filling the citizen’s entire day. It is based on slow
constant impregnation that functions over a long period of time exceeding the individual’s capacities
for attention or adaptation and thus his capabilities of resistance. In order for propaganda to maintain
encirclement, it must be exerted by an organization capable of influencing psychological channels
that reach the individual. Psychological and physical actions are inseparable elements to propaganda,
however, if no influence is exerted by an organization than there can be no propaganda because it
cannot operate in a vacuum. The necessity for a physical organization limits propaganda enterprises
and in order to be effective propaganda must work inside a group, principally inside a nation. Propaganda
must first organize the masses in order to propagandize within the masses. In general, propaganda
is a set of methods employed by an organized group that wants to bring about the active or passive
participation in its actions of a mass of individuals, psychologically unified through psychological
manipulations and incorporated into an organization.[10] Propaganda should no longer be viewed in
terms of an orthodoxy but rather modern propaganda should be seen as an orthopraxy because it aims
for participation not adherence. Participation can be active or passive: active if propaganda has
been able to mobilize the individual for action; passive if the individual does not act directly
but psychologically supports that action. 2. Part Two: Internal Characteristics The second major
element that a propagandist must understand is the environment in which the individual operates,
mainly the foci of interest of the public. An understanding of the conventional patterns and stereotypes
that pre-exist in a milieu provide the propagandist with material from which to build off. Propaganda
is not able to create something out of nothing and is confined to developing pre-existing material
thereby expressing the fundamental currents of the society it seeks to influence. These currents
include accepted structures such as collective sociological presuppositions and myths that are fundamental
to society.
"The Four Great Collective Sociological Presuppositions in the Modern World: 1.That an individual's
aim in life is happiness. 2.That man is naturally good. 3.That history develops in endless progress.
4.That everything is matter.
The Collective Myths: 1.of Work 2.of Happiness 3.of the Nation 4.of Youth 5.of the Hero"[11]
These currents reinforce socieand hold man’s mjor convictions and propa
ganda must voice this reality. Propaganda is concerned with timeliness since an individual is only
moved to action if he is pushed towards a timely one by propaganda. Once it becomes history it inevitably
becomes neutral and indifferent to the individual who is sensitive primarily to current news. "Operational
words" are used to penetrate an individual’s indifference. However they lose their value as immediacy
passes as old facts are replaced by new ones. The "current events man" is carried along the current
of news and caught in the events of today, losing interest in the events of yesterday. The indifferent
are apolitical and without opinion, therefore they are outside of propaganda’s grasp. Incidentally,
there are also the undecided, people whose opinions are vague, who form the majority of citizens
within the collective. These citizens are the most susceptible to control of public opinion that
is dictated by propaganda. Lastly, this part discusses propaganda and truth or the ability of propaganda
to relay something as true based not on the accuracy of facts but of reality. Propaganda veils the
truth with falsehoods even though lying is generally to be avoided. 3. Part Three: Categories of
Propaganda Presented in this chapter is a sophisticated taxonomy for propaganda, including such paired
opposites as political-sociological, vertical-horizontal, rational-irrational, and agitation-integration.
Political vs. Sociological Propaganda:
Political Propaganda involves techniques of influence employed by a government, a party, an administration,
or a pressure group with the intention of changing the behavior of the public. The themes and objectives
of this type of propaganda are of a political nature. The goals are determined by the government,
party, administration, or pressure group. The methods of political propaganda are calculated in a
precise manner and its main criteria is to disseminate an ideology for the very purpose of making
various political acts acceptable to the people.[12] There are two forms of political propaganda,
tactical and strategic. Tactical political propaganda seeks to obtain immediate results within a
given framework. Strategic political propaganda is not concerned with speed but rather it establishes
the general line, the array of arguments, and the staging of campaigns.
Political propaganda reversed is sociological propaganda because the ideology is penetrated
by means of its sociological context. Propaganda, as it is traditionally known, implies an attempt
to spread an ideology through the mass media of communication in order to lead the public to a desired
action. In sociological propaganda even media that are not controllable such as individual art work,
films, and writing reflect the ideology allowing for an accelerated penetration of the masses and
the individuals within them.[13]
Sociological propaganda is a phenomenon where a society seeks to integrate the maximum
number of individuals into itself by unifying its members’ behavior according to a pattern, spreading
its style of life abroad, and thus imposing itself on other groups. Essentially sociological
propaganda aims to increase conformity with the environment that is of a collective nature by developing
compliance with or defense of the established order through long term penetration and progressive
adaptation by using all social currents. The propaganda element is the way of life with which the
individual is permeated and then the individual begins to express it in film, writing, or art without
realizing it. This involuntary behavior creates an expansion of society through advertising, the
movies, education, and magazines. "The entire group, consciously or not, expresses itself in this
fashion; and to indicate, secondly that its influence aims much more at an entire style of life."[14]
This type of propaganda is not deliberate but springs up spontaneously or unwittingly within a culture
or nation. This propaganda reinforces the individual’s way of life and represents this way of life
as best. Sociological propaganda creates an indisputable criterion for the individual to make judgments
of good and evil according to the order of the individual’s way of life. Sociological propaganda
does not result in action, however, it can prepare the ground for direct propaganda. From then on,
the individual in the clutches of such sociological propaganda believes that those who live this
way are on the side of the angels, and those who don’t are bad.[15]
Vertical vs. Horizontal Propaganda: Vertical propaganda is similar to direct propaganda
that aims at the individual in the mass and is renewed constantly. However, in horizontal propaganda
there is no top down structure but rather it springs up from within the group. It involves meticulous
encirclement that traps an individual involuntarily in dialectic. The individual is led unfailingly
to its adherence by talking about the dialectic until the individual discovers the answer that was
set up unconsciously for him to find. Schools are a primary mechanism for integrating the individual
into the way of life.
Rational vs. Irrational Propaganda:
Propaganda is addressed to the individual on the foundation of feelings and passions which are
irrational, however, the content of propaganda does address reason and experience when it presents
information and furnishes facts making it rational as well. It is important for propaganda to be
rational because modern man needs relation to facts. Modern man wants to be convinced that by acting
in a certain way he is obeying reason in order to have self justification. The challenge is creating
an irrational response on the basis of rational and factual elements by leaving an impression on
an individual that remains long after the facts have faded away. Individuals are not compelled to
act based facts but rather on emotional pressure, the vision of the future, or the myth.
Agitation vs. Integration propaganda:Propaganda of agitation seeks to mobilize people
in order to destroy the established order and/or government. It seeks rebellion by provoking
a crisis or unleashing explosive movements during one. It momentarily subverts the habits, customs,
and beliefs that were obstacles to making great leap forward by addressing the internal elements
in each of us. It eradicates the individual out of his normal framework and then proceeds to plunge
him into enthusiasm by suggesting extraordinary goals which nevertheless seem to him completely within
reach. However, this enthusiasm can only last a short duration so the objective must be achieved
quickly followed by a period of rest. People cannot be kept at in a "state of perpetual enthusiasm
and insecurity". Rebellion is incited by the propagandist who knows that hate is one of the most
profitable resources when drawn out of an individual. Agitation propaganda is usually thought of
as propaganda in that it aims to influence people to act. Integration propaganda, on the other hand,
is a more subtle form that aims to reinforce cultural norms. This is sociological in nature because
it provides stability to society by supporting the "way of life" and the myths within a culture.
It is propaganda of conformity that requires participation in the social body. This type of propaganda
is more prominent and permanent, yet it is not as recognized as agitation propaganda because it is
more permanent manner. Basically, agitation propaganda provides the motive force when needed and
when not needed integration propaganda provides the context and backdrop. Chapter Two: The Condition
for the Existence of Propaganda
The nature of propaganda has changed over the course of time and yet it is evident that propaganda
cannot exist without a milieu. The emergence of propaganda is interconnected with technology and
scientific discoveries yet it can only appear and grow under certain conditions. Several events have
occurred that have furthered propaganda by increasing its ability in depth and discovering new methods.
Modern propaganda could not exist without the mass media or modern means of transportation which
permit crowds of diverse individuals from all over to assemble easily and frequently. 1.Part One:
The Sociological Conditions
Society must contain elements of both an individualist society and a mass society. Propaganda
aims to capture both the mass and the individual at the same time through this dual type of society.
A mass society is based on individuals that are reduced to ciphers based on what they have in common
to others. First conditions for growth and development of modern propaganda: it emerged in Western
Europe in the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth precisely because that was when
society was becoming increasingly individualistic and its organic structures were breaking down.
Individuals without natural organic local groups are defenseless and more likely to be caught up
in a social current. On the other hand, a mass society has considerable population density in which
local structures and organizations are weak, currents of opinion are strongly felt creating a certain
psychological unity, and individuals are organized into large and influential collectives. Mass society
is characterized by uniformity and material life despite differences of environment. Once a mass
society is created, public opinion will begin to play a role to help individuals form their own personal
opinion. Public opinion can only express itself through channels which are provided by the mass media
of communication without which there could be no propaganda. Yet it is important that mass media
be subject to centralized control in order to successfully form public opinion without any opposition.
Again Ellul mentions that the individual must be caught in wide net of media through all channels.
Once opinion has been formed, propaganda is able to reinforce it and transform opinion into action.
2. Part Two: Objective Conditions of Total Propaganda Propaganda thrives off of what individuals
have in common with others to develop patterns of behavior and modify cultural opinions. Total propaganda
recognizes that within a nation individuals should all have in common a standard of living, a culture,
and an ideology. The need of an average standard of living is that people must be able to afford
to buy a radio, TV, a newspaper, or go to the movies. It is mostly concerned with the densest mass
which is made up of average men and not the very rich or very poor. Poor cannot do this therefore
they cannot be subjected to integration propaganda because the immediate concerns of daily life absorb
all their capacities and efforts. The poor can only be subjected to agitation propaganda, excited
to the point of theft and murder. But they cannot be trained by propaganda, kept in hand, channeled,
and oriented. More advanced propaganda can influence only a man who is not completely haunted by
poverty, a man who can view things from a certain distance and be reasonably unconcerned about his
daily bread, who therefore can take an interest in more general matters.
"For propaganda to be effective the propagandee must have a certain store of ideas and a number
of conditioned reflexes that can only be acquired through peace of mind springing from relative security.
The establishment of a mode of common life- all this leads to the creation of a type of normal man
conveniently leads all men toward that norm via a multitude of paths. Propaganda’s intent is to integrate
people into the normal pattern prevailing in society bring about conformance to way of life. To sum
up: The creation of normalcy in our society can take one of two shapes. It can be the result of scientific,
psycho-sociological analysis based on statistics- that is the American type of normalcy. It can be
ideological and doctrinaire- that is the Communist type. But the results are identical: such normalcy
necessarily gives rise to propaganda that can reduce the individual to the pattern most useful to
society."[16]
"Information" Is an essential element of propaganda, which must "have reference to political or
economic reality" to be credible. In fact, no propaganda can work until the moment when a set of
facts has become a problem in the eyes of those who constitute public opinion." Education permits
the dissemination of propaganda in that it enables people to consume information. Information is
indistinguishable from propaganda in that information is an essential element of propaganda because
for propaganda to succeed it must have reference to political or economic reality. Propaganda grafts
itself onto an already existing reality through "informed opinion". Where no informed opinion with
regard to political or economic affairs propaganda cannot exist making it an indispensable aspect.
Propaganda means nothing without preliminary information that provides the basis for propaganda,
gives propaganda the means to operate, and generates the problems that propaganda exploits by pretending
to offer solutions. It is through information that the individual is placed in a social context and
learns to understand the reality of his own situation. Information allows us to evaluate our situation
feel our own personal problems are a general social problem thus enabling propaganda to entice us
into social and political action. Information is most effective when it is objective and broad because
it creates a general picture. With information quantity is better than quality, the more political
or economic facts believed to be mastered by an individual, the more sensitive their judgment is
to propaganda. In fact, only in and through propaganda do the masses have access to political economy,
politics, art, or literature. The more stereotypes in a culture, the easier it is to form public
opinion, and the more an individual participates in that culture, the more susceptible he becomes
to the manipulation of these symbols. Chapter Three: The Necessity for Propaganda
All propaganda is based on a need, a dual need, first there is the need of state to make it and
second there is the need of propagandee to receive it. These two needs compliment and correspond
to each other in the development of propaganda. Propaganda is an expression of modern society as
a whole. 1.Part One: The State's Necessity
The State has the need to make propaganda to integrate citizens into its society, to disseminate
information, and to increase participation and involvement of members of society. Sometimes the people
want to take part in government affairs. However, the official leaders cannot disconnect themselves
from what the people want. Being that the people in charge cant escape the people , bait must be
presented to them. This acts as a disguise that must be there to hide what is really happening behind
the scenes in the government . Citizens are aware that political decisions affect everybody and governments
cannot govern without the support, presence, pressure, or knowledge of the people. Yet the people
are incapable of making long term policy so opinion must be created to follow the government because
the government cannot be led by opinion. All of this describes the "Mass-Government" relationship
characterized by people demanding what has already been decided, in order to appear as though the
government is actually caring about what the people need. The next part that the book discuss is
psychological warfare. It is believed to be a peace policy that is used between nations as a form
of aggression. This type of propaganda changes the public opinion of an opposing regime so that it
can be in favor of there regime. 2. Part Two: The Individual’s Necessity The individual needs propaganda
to gain satisfaction as a member of society. Individuals want to be informed and to participate in
the decisions of the state. Propaganda is the outlet through which individuals obtain the satisfaction
of having contributed to the state. It is a necessary instrument of a state or institution to spread
information to members of the group or society. But for propaganda to succeed it must respond to
a need on the individual’s part as well. The individual is by no means just an innocent victim of
propaganda when in fact he provokes the psychological action of propaganda by not merely lending
himself to it, but also from deriving satisfaction from it. It is strictly a sociological phenomenon,
in the sense that it has its roots and reasons in the need of the group that will sustain it. The
great role performed by propaganda is in its ability to give the people the involvement they crave
or the illusion of it in order for the masses to be artificially satisfied. Individuals are faced
with decisions which require a range of information that the individual does not and cannot have
without propaganda. Thus, the individual is unable to accept that he cannot form opinion on his own
and is caught between his desire and his inability. People are willing and likely to accept propaganda
that allows them to artificially satisfy their desire to have an opinion by hiding their incompetence.
The individual does not mind being given preconceived positions because otherwise he would realize
that he does not understand the problems of the modern world. The individual would then realize that
he "depends on situations of which he has no control" and have to face this reality. The individual
cannot live in the state of this harsh reality so he derives satisfaction from the veil created by
the ideology and the sense of values it provides. The individual need psychological and ideological
reasons why he needs to be where he is and propaganda is the mechanism that the state uses for this
very purpose. Chapter Four: Psychological Effects of Propaganda
The psychological effects of propaganda on an individual cannot be ignored. The individual undergoes
profound changes while being propagandized mainly the diminishment of personal activity. "Propaganda
furnishes objectives, organizes the traits of an individual into a system, and freezes them into
a mold by standardizing current ideas, hardening the prevailing stereotypes, and furnishing thought
patterns in all areas."[17] The individual is traumatized by the overwhelming force of propaganda
that intensifies the prejudices and beliefs until eventually the individual has no control over his
own impulses. It seeks to push the individual into the mass until his will fades entirely into that
of the mass. Individuality is sacrificed for the greater cause of the nation by uniting him and blending
him with others. Critical and personal judgment are subdued and replaced with ready-made attitudes
and opinions. Discernment is made nearly impossible for the individual whose ability to judge is
destroyed making him dependent on propaganda’s ready-made opinions from then on. The individual can
no longer exercise his own judgment and becomes honed into what propaganda tells him. He no longer
expresses himself but his group once he accepts public opinion as his own. The artificial, impersonal
public opinion created by propaganda is absorbed by the individual and he becomes filled with its
conviction. When he is fully integrated in the social group and can no longer distinguish between
himself and society than he has reached total alienation. In this process, the individual’s personal
inclinations lead to participation in the collective where he loses control and submits to external
impulses. The individual is suppressed psychologically so that he can continue to live under the
conditions in which society places him by providing an artificial and unreal reality that is the
result of powerful propaganda. Chapter Five: The Socio-Political Effects
"In the nineteenth century, the problem of opinion formation through the expression of thought
was essentially a problem of contacts between the State and the individual, and a problem of acquisition
of freedom. But today, thanks to the mass media, the individual finds himself outside the battle
that is now between the State and powerful groups. The freedom to express ideas is no longer at stake
in this debate but it has been replaced by mastery and domination by the State or some powerful groups
over the formation of opinion. The individual is not in the battle because he is the stake and the
battle will determine what voice he will be permitted to hear and which words will have the power
to obsess him."[18] 1.Part One: Propaganda and Ideology
An ideology provides society certain beliefs and no social group can exist without the foundation
of these beliefs. Propaganda is the means by which an ideology can expand without force. An ideology
is either fortified within a group or expanded beyond the borders of a group through propaganda.
However, propaganda is less and less concerned with spreading the ideology nowadays as it is with
becoming autonomous. The ideology is no longer the decisive factor of propaganda that must be obeyed
by the propagandist. The propagandist cannot be constrained by the ideology of his State but must
operate in service of the state and be able to manipulate the ideology as if it were an object. The
ideology merely provides the content for the propagandist to build off since he is limited to what
already is present within the group, nation, or society. The fundamental ideologies are nationalism,
socialism, communism, and democracy. 2. Part Two: Effects on the Structure of Public Opinion Public
opinion is an instrument of propaganda that is disseminated through the mass media of communication
to the masses. While most people view the formation of public opinion as being shaped itself by interaction
between different viewpoints on controversial questions, this is incorrect because public opinion
is delineated by propaganda as a "truth" which is either believed or not believed. Public opinion
ceases to be controversial and can no longer form itself except through channels of mass media. No
opinion can be held until it is communicated to the masses through mass media. Propaganda uses public
opinion to externalize inner opinions of the organization to the masses that eventually produces
conformity.[19] 3. Part Three: Propaganda and Grouping In regards to propaganda, there are two groups:
the groups that make propaganda and the groups that are subjected to propaganda. In Ellul's view,
there is a "double foray on the part of propaganda that proves the excellence of one group and the
evilness of another at the same time to create partitioning". This creates isolation between groups
by promoting allegiance to the group one is in and suppressing conversation between groups. The more
they listen to their propaganda the stronger their beliefs and the greater their justifications for
their actions. Partitioning takes place on many different levels including class, religious, political,
national and blocs of nations. A superior group is able to affect the lesser groups, however, groups
that have an equal amount of influence will only separate further from one another in that a members
allegiance to a group develops closed mindedness. Well-organized propaganda is able to work with
different elements that exist within a nation such as religion, political parties, and labor groups.
4. Part Four: Propaganda and Democracy Since democracy depends on public opinion, it is clear that
propaganda must be involved. The relationship between democracy and propaganda evidently presents
a conflict between the principles of democracy and the processes of propaganda. The individual is
viewed as the cornerstone of a democracy which is a form of government that is made "for the people
and by the people". However, as discussed in early chapters Ellul described the masses are incapable
of making long-term foreign policy and the government needs to make these decisions in a timely manner.
This is where propaganda comes into play and projects an artificial reality to the masses to satisfy
their need to participate in government while the decisions are really made behind the scenes. This
was also describe earlier as the "mass-government" relationship. Democratic regimes develop propaganda
in line with its myths and prejudices. Propaganda stresses the superiority of a democratic society
while intensifying the prejudices between democratic and oppressive.
Major themes
Propaganda: The Formation of Men's Attitudes builds on prior notions of propaganda to demonstrate
that while propaganda is psychological in nature it is just as much sociological in nature as well.
Propaganda is not just embedded into the individual's psyche but also the cultural psyche. Propaganda
works off the inner characteristics of both the individual and the society that the individual belongs.
This thorough analysis made by Ellul illustrates that to downplay the importance of the sociological
influences of propaganda to psychological ones is a dreadful error. Propaganda is more threatening
when it begins to be recognized as sociological as well psychological in nature. Below are two major
themes the first stressing the psychological aims of propaganda the second the sociological aims.
"The Lonely Crowd"
The term "lonely crowd" is used by Ellul to distinguish the two inseparable elements of propaganda,
the individual and the masses, which must be addressed by the propagandist at the same time. As an
isolated unit, the individual is of no interest to the propagandist unless he is reduced to an average.
It is crucial that the individual is never considered as an individual but always in terms of what
he has in common with others. The individual is included and integrated into the mass because the
propagandist profits from the process of diffusion of emotions through the mass, and at the same
time, from the pressures felt by an individual when in a group.[20]
In this setting, "the individual caught up in the mass", the individual's reactions are easier
to provoke and psychic defenses are weakened. The individual must always be considered as a participant
in a mass and similarly the mass must only be viewed as a crowd composed of individuals. When propaganda
is addressed to the crowd, it must touch each individual in that crowd which is in fact nothing but
assembled individuals. Conversely, the individual should not be viewed as alone as a listener, watcher,
or reader because the individual is nevertheless part of an invisible crowd though he is actually
alone. The most favorable moment to influence an individual is when he is alone in the mass, the
structure of the mass is extremely profitable to the propagandist concerned with being effective.
Fundamental currents in society
"One cannot make just any propaganda any place for anybody."[21] While propaganda is focused on
reaching the individual, it cannot only rely on building off what already exists in the individual.
Propaganda must also attach itself to the pre-existing fundamental currents of the society it seeks
to influence. The propagandist must know the current tendencies and the stereotypes among the public
he is trying to reach. These are indicated by principal symbols of the culture the propagandist wishes
to attack since these symbols express the attitudes of a particular culture. Individuals are part
of a culture and are therefore psychologically shaped by that culture. The main task of propaganda
is to utilize the conditioned symbols as transmitters of that culture to serve its purpose. Propaganda
must be a reflection of the fundamental structures of society to be successful and not contradictory
of existing opinions. A skillful propagandist does not try to change mass opinion or go against an
accepted structure. Only a bad propagandist would make a direct attack on an established, reasoned,
durable opinion, accepted cliché, or fixed pattern. "Each individual harbors a large number of stereotypes
and established tendencies; from this arsenal the propagandist must select those easiest to mobilize,
those which will give the greatest strength to the action he wants to precipitate."[22]
While propaganda cannot create something out of nothing, it does have the ability to build on
the foundation already established. More importantly even though it does not create new material
and is confined to what already exists, it is not necessarily powerless. "It can attack from the
rear, war own slowly, provide new centers of interest, which cause the neglect of previously acquired
positions; it can divert a prejudice; or it can elicit an action contrary to an opinion held by the
individual without his being clearly aware of it."[23]
Propaganda can gradually undermine prejudices and images in order to weaken them. These fundamental
currents in society create the perfect atmosphere for sociological propaganda which influences the
individual through his customs and unconscious habits. Sociological propaganda is a phenomenon where
a society tries to unify its members’ behavior according to a pattern. Essentially sociological propaganda
is to increase conformity with the environment that is of a collective nature by developing compliance
with or defense of the established order through long term penetration and progressive adaptation
by using all social currents. The propaganda element is the way of life with which the individual
is permeated and then the individual begins to express it in film, writing, or art without realizing
it. This involuntary behavior creates an expansion of society through advertising, the movies, education,
and magazines. "The entire group, consciously or not, expresses itself in this fashion; and to indicate,
secondly that its influence aims much more at an entire style of life."[24] This type of propaganda
is not deliberate but springs up spontaneously or unwittingly within a culture or nation. This propaganda
reinforces the individual’s way of life and represents this way of life as best.
See also [edit] Brainwashing Conformity Ideology Indoctrination Media manipulation Mind control
Propaganda Psychological manipulation Psychological warfare Social Influence Socially constructed
reality
The USA administration, and especially neocons, entrenched in State Department, organized putsch
in Kiev with the help of their European satellites. When the civil war started as the result of the
putsch the USA introduced sanctions against Russia. See "Fuck
the EU": State Department neocons show EU its real place
Tremendous pressure exerted on Russia by the West, largely intended to show the subjects of world politics
undesirability of implementing an independent foreign policy. Washington and its satellites in Europe
through sanctions are trying to demonstrate their ability to isolate the "offending" countries from
the global economy and technical progress by controlling supplies of high technology equipment. However,
analysis of the accusations against Russia suggests that both the USA Europe are dominated by neoliberals/neocons
who themselves are divorced from the realities of the current processes and looks at the world through
the eyes of the early 90th then neoliberalism enjoyed its triumphal march in Eastern Europe and xUSSR
space.
After 2008 neoliberalism entered so called zombie stage. It is still very powerful and very
dangerous, but ideology of neoliberalism, like ideology of Marxism before is now looks like perishable
goods with expired date of consumption. In no way it is not attractive anymore. Events like enforcing
Greece debt slavery by Germany and France only increase the reaction of rejection.
And that's despite all economic power the USA definitely possesses and success in implementing economic
sanctions which drove the Russia GDP growth into negative rages presents huge challenge for the USA.
One of the best option the USA elites are pushing is the limited war in Europe that can weaken both
EU and Russia. So in a way the putsch in Kiev was anti-EU measure, as Victoria Nuland famous quote suggests.
Sanctions, as damaging as they are, suggest that the empire lost diplomatic skills. And there
is no question that economic weapons are as close to the act of war as you can get. See
Cold War II. As Patrick Buchanan notes (ecnomicpolicyjournal.com,
April 28, 2014):
"Mr. Obama is focused on isolating President Vladimir V. Putin's Russia by cutting off its economic
and political ties to the outside world ... and effectively making it a pariah state."
So wrote Peter Baker in Sunday's New York Times. Yet if history is any guide, this "pariah policy,"
even if adopted, will not long endure.
Three years after Khrushchev sent tanks into Hungary, he
was touring the USA and celebrating with Ike the new "Spirit of Camp David."
Half a year after Khrushchev moved missiles into Cuba, JFK was talking detente is his famous speech
at American University.
Three weeks after Moscow incited the Arabs in the Six-Day War, Lyndon Johnson was meeting with
Premier Alexei Kosygin in New Jersey, where the "Spirit of Glassboro," was born.
So it went through the Cold War. Post-crises, U.S. presidents reached out to Soviet leaders. For
they saw Russia as too large and too powerful to be isolated and ostracized like North Korea.
The sustained expansion of economic sanctions, especially against the oil and gas sector and
specific companies as well as limited access to credit resources indicate the seriousness of the Western
establishment to deprive Russia of the economic growth and the ability to protect its own economic interests.
This "Anaconda strategy" of encircling Russia got a significant book by victory of far right in EuroMaidan.
This event has become for a great geopolitical victory for the USA and humbling defeat for Russia. Russia
was in bas shape to prevent it as the logic of development of new state immanently produces anti-Russian
sentiments as the mean to create their own identity. But still weakness of Russia in Ukraine was real
and signify a serious problems ahead. The reaction of Russia on far right victory at EuroMaydan gave
rise to even more active implementation of the strategy of confrontation, and propaganda campaign against
"the Russian threat". This strategy involves increasing the military presence on the European continent
and military power of NATO. Much tougher stance toward Russian projects in Western and Eastern Europe
and in attacks on the level of international organizations. Along with the anti-Russian operations in
Europe, the US and its satellites are active in the countries of Central Asia and the Caucasus. A good
example is the recent attempt to organize a Maidan in Armenia.
"... with shale fields as an important source of output, he said. While Goldman's official forecasts extend to 2020, there is a "very high probability" prices will stay depressed until the end of next decade, he said. ..."
"... U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude futures fell 25 cents to settle at $46.90 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices are down 12 percent this year and 50 percent over the past 12 months. ..."
Goldman cut its crude forecasts this month, saying the global surplus of oil is bigger than it
previously thought and that failure to reduce production fast enough may require prices to fall
near $20 a barrel to clear the glut. Prices may touch that level when stockpiles are filled to
capacity, forcing producers in some areas to cut output, Currie said Wednesday.
"The last time we saw a period that was similar to today was 1986, 29 years ago," he said. "We
waited 15 years" for oil to start rising again.
Lower iron ore, copper and steel prices as well as weaker currencies in commodity-producing
countries have reduced costs for oil companies, according to Currie. The world is shifting from
an "investment phase" of a 30-year commodity cycle to an "exploitation phase," with shale fields
as an important source of output, he said. While Goldman's official forecasts extend to 2020,
there is a "very high probability" prices will stay depressed until the end of next decade, he
said.
U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude futures fell 25 cents to settle at $46.90 on the New
York Mercantile Exchange. Prices are down 12 percent this year and 50 percent over the past 12
months.
Should oil fall to $20, it would be "one touch," he said. Inventories would top out in parts of
the world, some producers would shut production and the market would come into balance.
"... Kiev has become an accidental, burdensome ally to the West. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization only paid lip service to future Ukrainian membership, while the EU, which never had any intention of taking in Ukraine, pushed an association agreement out of bureaucratic habit more than strategic vision. ..."
"... The least charitably inclined claim that Poroshenko prosecuted the war in eastern Ukraine as a way of delaying reform. What's undeniable is that the shaky ceasefire leaves the Kiev government at the mercy of Putin and his proxies. Should anything start going right for Poroshenko, the fighting could flare back up at any moment. ..."
"... Everybody in Kiev understands that there's no way of reconquering lost territory by force. Ukrainian politicians publicly pledge to win back breakaway regions through reform and economic success. What they hope for is that sanctions will cause enough problems inside Russia that the Kremlin will run out of resources to sabotage Ukraine. Wishful thinking won't replace the painful reforms ahead. ..."
May 19, 2015 | http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/05/17/why-this-ukrainian-revolution-may-be-doomed-too/
At home, there is the possibility of more protests, a paralyzed government, and the rise of politicians seeking accommodation
with Putin. "Slow and unsuccessful reforms are a bigger existential threat than the Russian aggression," said Oleksiy Melnyk, a security
expert at Kiev's Razumkov Center. Even if Ukrainians don't return to the street, they'll get a chance to voice their discontent at
the ballot box. Local elections are due in the fall - and the governing coalition between Poroshenko and Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
is so shaky that nobody can rule out an early parliamentary vote.
In its international relations, Ukraine is living on borrowed time - and money. A dispute over restructuring $23 billion in debt
broke into the open last week with the Finance Ministry accusing foreign creditors of not negotiating in good faith ahead of a June
deadline. An EU summit this week is likely to end in more disappointment, as Western European countries are reluctant to grant Ukrainians
visa-free travel.
Kiev has become an accidental, burdensome ally to the West. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization only paid lip service to future
Ukrainian membership, while the EU, which never had any intention of taking in Ukraine, pushed an association agreement out of bureaucratic
habit more than strategic vision.
... ... ...
The least charitably inclined claim that Poroshenko prosecuted the war in eastern Ukraine as a way of delaying reform. What's
undeniable is that the shaky ceasefire leaves the Kiev government at the mercy of Putin and his proxies. Should anything start going
right for Poroshenko, the fighting could flare back up at any moment.
Ukrainian security officials say that the enemy forces gathering in the separatist regions are at their highest capability yet.
The most alarming observation is that the once ragtag band of rebels - backed up by regular Russian troops in critical battles -
is increasingly looking like a real army thanks to weapons and training provided by Russia.
... ... ...
Everybody in Kiev understands that there's no way of reconquering lost territory by force. Ukrainian politicians publicly pledge
to win back breakaway regions through reform and economic success. What they hope for is that sanctions will cause enough problems
inside Russia that the Kremlin will run out of resources to sabotage Ukraine. Wishful thinking won't replace the painful reforms
ahead.
Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu has told reporters that the military will sponsor a major research of coups conducted through
mass protest – so called 'color revolutions' – to prevent the situations that Russia faced in 1991 and 1993.
"Some people say that the military should not be involved in political processes, some say the direct opposite. We will
order a study on the phenomenon of color revolutions and the military's role in their prevention,"
Shoigu told the participants of the Army-2015 political forum Friday.
"We have no right to allow the repetitions of the collapses of 1991 and 1993," he said. "How to do it is another
story, but it is clear that we must deal with the situation. We must understand how to prevent this and how to teach the younger
generation so that it supported the calm and gradual development of our country."
The minister added that the consequences of color revolutions can be now observed in many Arab nations and also in Serbia. He
also said that the Ukrainian crisis that started in 2014 also was "a major tragedy in the row of color revolutions."
In March this year the head of Russia's Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev promised that this body would develop a detailed
plan of action aimed at preventing color revolutions or any other attempts of forceful change of lawfully elected authorities through
mass street protest. He also said that the Security Council had prepared a list of proposed measures that could negate the possible
threat, including some steps against "network protest activities" and propaganda work against "romantic revolutionary stereotype."
Also in March, President Vladimir Putin addressed the dangers of color revolutions in his speech to the Interior Ministry.
"The extremists' actions become more complicated," he said. "We are facing attempts to use the so called 'color technologies'
in organizing illegal street protests to open propaganda of hatred and strife on social networks."
In the same month, the Interior Ministry drafted a bill containing amendments to the law on rallies that covered car protests
and sit-ins. The ministry experts said that the move would circumvent legal ambiguity in the interest of society as a whole.
In November, Putin blasted color revolutions as a main tool used by destructive forces in the geopolitical struggle.
"In the modern world, extremism is used as a geopolitical tool for redistribution of spheres of interest. We can see the
tragic consequences of the wave of the so-called color revolutions, the shock experienced by people in the countries that went
through the irresponsible experiments of hidden, or sometimes brute and direct interference with their lives,"
the Russian leader said.
In January, a group of Russian conservative activists, uniting war veterans, nationalist bikers and pro-Christian politicians
launched an "anti-Maidan" political movement in Moscow to oppose any attempts to thwart the stable development of the country. Its
first rallies were held on the same days as some anti-government protests and according to law enforcers the conservatives outnumbered
the pro-revolution activists by almost 10-fold.
"..."We have organized crime specialized in finance. As a consequence of the discovery of the theft, the banks stopped issuing loans
for a while. There was a domino effect which hit the leu.""
July 2, 2015
Local franchise of accountancy giant Grant Thornton was working for three of the country's largest banks when $1bn was embezzled
One of the world's leading auditors has been accused of negligence and incompetence after $1bn was siphoned out of
Moldova from under its nose – a sum equivalent to 15% of the
former Soviet republic's GDP.
Grant Thornton, the UK based accountancy giant with local franchises in dozens of countries, was the auditor for three of Moldova's
largest banks through which the money was embezzled and spirited out of the country in complex financial transactions, some through
UK companies.
As a result, the authorities had to rescue the three banks with a bailout equivalent to half the annual budget. The knock-on effect
was a currency collapse and a plunge towards recession, ruining the economy almost overnight. Moldova is already Europe's poorest
country.
The theft was discovered in November 2014 at Unibank, Banca de Economii and Banca Sociala , which the Moldovan member of Grant
Thornton, a global network of independent firms, has been auditing since 2010, 2011 and 2013 respectively.
Iurie Chirinciuc, a Moldovan MP who was part of a commission set up to investigate the affair, believes Grant Thornton was negligent
and obstructive.
"All the [audit] reports give positive opinions," he said. "How can you give a positive opinion when the situation at these banks
was so grave?"
Grant Thornton said it drew the attention of the banks and relevant authorities to its concerns about the banks and that its audit
reports contained alerts about loans. But Chirinciuc said it should not have given the banks a generally clean bill of health.
He claims repeated requests for the auditors to give testimony to the inquiry were "vehemently opposed".
"I have made a formal request for analysis of Grant Thornton to the central bank," Chirinciuc said. "In the commission, I was
shocked to see that all state institutions were informed and updated as to the situation at the banks, but did not intervene. These
circumstances make me think that very high-ranking dignitaries are involved in the theft of the billion."
Chirinciuc was also aghast that after the fraud was discovered, Grant Thornton's Moldova director, Stéphane Bridé, was appointed
economy minister. Bridé told the Guardian his nomination "was made in conformity with the legislation of the Republic of Moldova,
according to which my professional qualities and experience were exclusively considered".
Multiple spurious loans were granted by Banca de Economii and Unibank on the basis of false guarantees to companies that then transferred
the money offshore. Some went to British companies controlled by entities registered in places where directors' identities are kept
secret.Two preliminary reports – one by the parliamentary commission and the other by corporate investigation firm Kroll – suggest
that fraud eventually became the main occupation of the banks.
The parliamentary report says: "The management of the banks have manifested evident lapses in professionalism and integrity …
by giving credits that were compromised from the beginning" and made transactions of "fictional and fraudulent character". The MPs
concluded the banks had knowingly endangered their "capacity to make basic operations" such as paying out pensions and public sector
salaries.
The banks consistently misrepresented cash balances by using unorthodox "overnight deposits" – zero-interest deposits from Russian
banks Interprombank, Gazprombank, Alef Bank and Metrobank – to disguise the lack of capital while continuing to give out nonperforming
loans. "In essence these operations were operations of manipulation," the parliamentary report says.
So contaminated have the banks become that the IMF and World Bank have suspended programmes with Moldova, and the EU is considering
following suit. World Bank country manager Alex Kremer said last week: "We are advising the authorities that the three banks ...
should be liquidated." He said trying to nationalise or recapitalise the banks would risk wasting more taxpayers' money.
Moldovan prosecutors have since launched an investigation that has so far put about 30 people under criminal indictment, including
bank executives. Among these is Ilan Shor, chairman of the board at Banca de Economii since April 2014, allegedly the mastermind.
Shor was released from house arrest on 23 May, having agreed to cooperate with investigators. The chief prosecutor has not returned
a request for comment. Shor denies wrongdoing. Earlier this month, he was elected mayor of the small town of Orhei.
Kroll's confidential report was published online in April
by the speaker of the Moldovan parliament, Andrian Candu. It says a group of companies under Shor's control gradually took over the
banks and in 2010 started giving never-to-be-repaid loans to themselves. When watchdogs closed in, "orders were given by management
of the banks to archive loan documentation relating to the suspicious transactions". A vehicle belonging to another Shor company
that collected the paperwork was subsequently stolen and burned.
Between 2011, when Shor's companies were allegedly beginning to sink their teeth into the banks, and October 2014 when the scam
went bust, Kroll found the number of Shor-related companies involved grew from 10 to 39. By December 2014, 90% of Unibank's loans
were to Shor group companies. Deposits recorded as being from Russian banks, which enabled Banca de Economii to make huge loans,
were not received.
"Ilan Shor and individuals associated with him played an integral role in coordinating this activity," Kroll says in its report,
claiming there was "a deliberate intention to extract as much benefit as possible for entities connected to Mr Shor and to the detriment
of the bank". A Kroll representative said the report was leaked without consent and declined to comment further.
The "missing billion" contributed to a run on the Moldovan leu in which it lost a quarter of its value against the dollar in February.
Grant Thornton had no presence in Moldova before 2010, but its ascent has been startling. Seven of the country's 14 biggest banks
became its clients in the space of four years, making it by far the biggest player in the market. International competitors such
as KPMG and Deloitte steadily lost Moldova to Grant Thornton, with neither having more than two major banks on their roster in the
country by 2013.
Representatives of the Moldovan Grant Thornton franchise deny impropriety and say that that auditors cannot be held responsible
if clients do not disclose full financial information.
"While we would like to detect all fraud, according to International Standards of Auditing, the auditors' role is not to discover
fraud, or to prosecute clients for fraud," they said in a statement. "We stand by the quality of our work – which is public record
- and believe the audit opinions were correct under the circumstances."
A spokesman for the global office said Grant Thornton member firms acted autonomously and their work was only scrutinised by head
office every three years. It did not respond to a question asking what it planned to do about its relationship with GT Moldova.
A Moldovan financial system insider who wishes to remain anonymous said: "It's clear Grant Thornton was at least negligent if
not worse. How could it not have known what was going on, especially at Unibank where the scam was almost total?"
In its response, GT Moldova said: "Various observations were mentioned annually in the letters we addressed to management and
shareholders of these banks and to the National Banks of Moldova.
"We wish to remind you that in 2013, the inquiry commission for the assets of Banca de Economii was based not only on the audit
of the court and reports of the International Monetary Fund but also mentions of Grant Thornton audit."
The effect of the financial loss has been felt by ordinary Moldovans. Ion Preașcă, a finance journalist in ther capital Chișinău,
said: "We have organised crime specialised in finance. As a consequence of the discovery of the theft, the banks stopped issuing
loans for a while. There was a domino effect which hit the leu."
Alexei, who owns a small construction business, said: "They will invent some new taxes to make up for the damage. I had an account
at Banca Sociala and have stopped using it since. I opened two new accounts in banks with foreign ownership."
Natasha, a bookkeeper, said: "The resulting price rises had bad effects. The electricity price nearly doubled from one month to
the next. The bill was 300 lei [£10] and it's now 500. Pensions and salaries haven't increased."
The criminal investigation is ongoing. Neither the Moldovan National Bank or government returned requests for information. An
estimated 50,000 Moldovans protested on 3 May in Chișinău, demanding justice and the recovery of the stolen money.
Thanks to Iurie Sanduta, editor of www.rise.md, for help researching this article.
"Handshakable" is Soviet dissidents times term meaning a person not too in
bed with "despicable" regime. Now used mainly in satical sense with the meaning
almost identical to kreakls" -- useless person with strong opinions about
everything and very active on the Internet.
I've found this little gem 2 days ago and I'm still… "overjoyed" by it.
Despite Manichean claims of the Free and Independent ™ Western Media
that in Russia "there are no free press", that everything is controlled
by Kremlin and Putin, and only [Radio] Ekho Moskvy, Novaya Gazeta [Newspaper]
and Dozhd [TV] are the few remaining honest sources of truth and independent
journalism ™, there are still a lot of "handshakable" outlets created for
kreakls by kreakls.
In one such handshakeble paper, the "Snob" [well, at least they are honest
with themselves and their readers] recently was published
this
interview with another extremely handshakable, ah, "person", who used
to be the Chief Editor of the "KommmersantЪ" paper in it's [even more] handshakable
heyday. This particular excerpt seems especially "meaty" (translation is
mine):
Snob: And when do you think the era of the "rich cooperators'"
of the 90s came to an end?
AV: I think it happened when they arrested Khodorkovsky. Then not only
the era of cooperators came to an end, the society in this country was
finished
also.
Snob: Why is society so easily reconciled with this and it's own end?
AV: And because it could not be otherwise! Because there are no such
country – Russia! This is a huge geopolitical mistake … I do not know whose,
Lord God's or Darwin's. This country never existed, don't exist now and
never will be. This country is bad.
Snob: Even if it is so bad, it does not mean that it doesn't exist.
AV: Well, fuck with it! Here's my answer. Fuck with it, that it exists!
I wish it to be healthy! But this is not interesting for me. It is a cancer
on the body of the world! What, should I fight with it? I'm not a professor
Pirogov, I will not cut out this tumor, I just do not know how. Honestly,
I don't know how.
Snob: What are the symptoms of this cancer?
AV: There are two evidences of this cancer. Never in my life Russia and
its people had any other national ideas then "we are surrounded by enemies"
and "Russia for the Russians!". With such two fundamental attributes there
can't be country. This is just savagery. Can you give me somw other Russian
national ideas?
Snob: Empire from sea to sea.
AV: This is just "We are surrounded by enemies" and "Russia for the
Russians!" in other words. It's just combined in a beautiful word "empire".
Nothing else! And with such fundamental principles country of course, some
country might even exist, but who needs it? I do not! It is necessary to
those inside.
Needless to say, Andrey Vasiliev now is a proud and free emigre.
So, after reading this little interview I got a proverbial train of thoughts
going in my head at a top speed,finally arriving to it's destination. Now
I can say that I "understand" (as in "understand what makes them tic") all
of them – liberasts, Byelarussian zmagars, Ukrainian svidomites, pint-sized
Baltic patriots, sausage emigrants forming Brighton Beach Bitching Brigade
etc.
But that's the topic for another post
ThatJ, July 21, 2015 at 2:50 am
Does Andrey Vasiliev live in Brighton Beach now?
yalensis, July 21, 2015 at 3:24 am
No, Vasiliev lives in Geneva, Switzerland.
And, no, he is not Jewish, in case that's what you are trying to get
at.
He is of Russian ethnicity.
yalensis, July 21, 2015 at 3:27 am
Dear Lyttenburgh:
Thanks for this find.
These Fifth Columnists are all the same, aren't they?
For them, the true litmus test was, and always has been, Khodorkovsky.
They longed for a world in which Khodorkovsky owned every single thing
in Russia that wasn't nailed down; and everybody else, including these kreakls,
just getting crumbs from his table.
But the kreakls receiving bigger crumbs, plus an honored place at the
master's side.
I regularly ask Russians – ordinary work-a-day Russians, be they of the
working or the professional classes – if they could imagine leaving Russia
forever, if they could consider emigrating, never intending to return. They
all say they couldn't. They say they'd like to travel, but they always feel
they would want to come "home".
I have never yet met one Russian person
who speaks as does Vasiliev, no one who says "I hate this place and my fellow
countrymen so much: it's a shithole; it's a dump; it's full of morons etc.,
etc….", though I often hear them speaking loudly and clearly in that way
from afar through the bullhorn of the Western mass media.
I ask my children regularly if they would like to live in England. I
get a resounding "No!" off them. They speak English fluently now (except
the youngest) and say they like visiting the place, that it's "cool" and,
curiously enough, all their pals think it's "cool" that they are "half-English".
My children do as well, not least because I suspect they can already sense
the great advantage that their bilingualism has given them – but they categorically
state they are Russian and that Russia is their Motherland, their rodina,
the land that "bore" them, their "Mother Russia".
My wife is the same.
None of them are nationalistic, but they are very, very patriotic.
People such as Vasiliev are a small yet vociferous minority that, I suspect,
suffers from some psychological aberration.
I am so glad that many of them leap at the first opportunity to fuck
off away from here.
America has a whole university set aside
for people who hate America. A sort of open-air loonybin.
Your Russian anti-patriots can be corralled and stowed out of sight in
the same way, if you wish. Market it right, and they'll do it entirely of
their own accord.
I should add that I know many who have chosen to leave Russia in search
of fame and fortune, education, a better standard of living etc., but none
of them left because they loathe the land and its people.
I also have
over the years come across a few who have returned: some because, having
achieved success, they preferred to live out the rest of their lives in
their Mother Russia; others because they could not adapt to an alien culture
("No 'soul' in the USA!" I have often heard such folk say; and others simply
because they were homesick.
Interestingly, and unbeknownst to me, my sister emailed my wife last
week when I was in the UK and told her that I was clearly "homesick".
"... a prolonged period of low oil prices is now baked into analysts' earnings expectations,
although some Canadian analysts will probably have to ratchet down their estimates even farther.
..."
"... In December, he noted that his clients were consumed with in energy, and he cautioned against
holding on to the previous cycle's winners. Two months later, he quipped that the short period of
crumbling crude prices would not "cure a decade-long notion of oil and energy being the place to
be." ..."
"... In December, he noted that his clients were consumed with in energy, and he cautioned against
holding on to the previous cycle's winners. Two months later, he quipped that the short period of
crumbling crude prices would not "cure a decade-long notion of oil and energy being the place to
be." ..."
"... Earnings per share revisions are one of our most trusted contrarian indicators and the fact
that they have hit extreme negative levels is encouraging to us for sector performance
prospects ..."
Earlier this year, Bank of Montreal Chief Investment Strategist Brian Belski called energy
stocks a value trap.
He has become more constructive, upgrading the sector to market weight, from underweight.
A confluence of factors influenced the strategist's decision to "neutralize" his portfolio
position for both U.S. and Canadian energy stocks. The first is that the sector has reached what
he called "peak negativity," underperforming the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index by the most
since 1986, when the last supply side-driven crash in oil prices occurred.
Second, a prolonged period of low oil prices is now baked into analysts' earnings expectations,
although some Canadian analysts will probably have to ratchet down their estimates even farther.
"Earnings per share revisions are one of our most trusted contrarian indicators and the fact
that they have hit extreme negative levels is encouraging to us for sector performance
prospects,"he wrote.
"Energy sector growth expectations in Canada have come down significantly, but still remain too
optimistic given the oil price outlook and especially when compared to estimates for the U.S.,"
he added.
... ... ...
In December, he noted that his clients were consumed with in energy, and he cautioned against
holding on to the previous cycle's winners. Two months later, he quipped that the short period of
crumbling crude prices would not "cure a decade-long notion of oil and energy being the place to
be."
But the "pain trade," Belski now says, is for energy stocks to move higher.
Quite the hand wringing. Russia must do this and that and is urged but it is also hoped that
Russia will join… Sanctions on Russia if it does not do what the do nothings say?? It would be
nice if the EU intel agencies openly published which terrorist organizations in Syria sufficiently
'moderate' not to be bombed by Russia.
1. The conflict in Syria and the suffering of the Syrian people is showing no sign of abating.
The scale of the tragedy, having killed 250,000 men, women and children, displaced 7.6 million
inside the country and sent over 4 million fleeing into neighbouring and other countries, is now
the world's largest humanitarian disaster, with no parallel in recent history. The EU, as the
largest donor, has demonstrated its willingness and commitment to do what it can to alleviate
the humanitarian consequences. As the crisis intensifies there is an increasingly urgent need
to find a lasting solution that will end this conflict. Only a Syrian-led political process leading
to a peaceful and inclusive transition, based on the principles of the Geneva communiqué of 30
June 2012, will bring back stability to Syria, enable peace and reconciliation and create the
necessary environment for efficient counter terrorism efforts and maintain the sovereignty, independence,
unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian State. There cannot be a lasting peace in Syria
under the present leadership and until the legitimate grievances and aspirations of all components
of the Syrian society are addressed.
2. The EU's objective is to bring an end to the conflict and enable the Syrian people to live
in peace in their own country. The international community has to unite around two complementary
and interlinked tracks – a political one that aims to bring an end to the civil war by addressing
all the root causes of the conflict and establish an inclusive political transition process that
will restore peace to the country – and a security one to focus on the fight against the regional
and global threat of Da'esh.
3. The EU reiterates its full support to the UN-led efforts and the work of UN Special Envoy
Staffan de Mistura to build this political track. The EU emphasizes the need to accelerate the
work of the entire international community on the political track in the framework of the UN-led
process. The EU is already actively contributing to the UN initiatives and will increase its diplomatic
work in support of the UN-led efforts, including the UN Special Envoy's proposal for intra-Syrian
working groups.
4. We call on all Syrian parties to show a clear and concrete commitment to the UN-led process
and to participate actively in the working groups. The EU underlines the urgency for the moderate
political opposition and associated armed groups to unite behind a common approach in order to
present an alternative to the Syrian people. These efforts must be inclusive involving women and
civil society. The EU will sustain its support to the moderate opposition, including the SOC,
and recalls that it is a vital element in fighting extremism and has a key role to play in the
political transition.
5. The EU will continue to put all of its political weight, actively and effectively, behind
UN-led international efforts to find a political solution to the conflict, and calls on regional
and international partners to do likewise. We urge all those with influence on the parties, including
on the Syrian regime, to use this influence to encourage a constructive role in the process leading
to a political transition and to end the cycle of violence. The EU will pro-actively engage with
key regional actors such as , Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq and international partners within
the UN framework to build the conditions for a, peaceful and inclusive transition. In this context,
the Council recalls its decision to task the HRVP to explore ways in which the EU could actively
promote more constructive regional cooperation.
6. The protection of civilians in Syria must be a priority for the international community.
The EU condemns the excessive, disproportionate and indiscriminate attacks that the Syrian regime
continues to commit against its own people. The Assad regime bears the greatest responsibility
for the 250.000 deaths of the conflict and the millions of displaced people. The EU recalls that
international humanitarian law applies to all parties, and human rights need to be fully respected.
We call on all parties to stop all forms of indiscriminate shelling and bombardment against civilian
areas and structures such as hospitals and schools and, in particular, on the Syrian regime to
cease all aerial bombardments, including the use of barrel bombs in line with UNSC Resolution
2139 and the use of chemical weapons in line with UNSCR 2209. The systematic targeting of civilians
by the regime has led to mass displacements and encouraged recruitment to and the flourishing
of terrorist groups in Syria. This calls for urgent attention and action.
The EU will reinforce its efforts to scale up the implementation of the UNSC Resolutions 2139,
2165 and 2191 to deliver cross-border and cross line assistance in order to help those Syrians
most desperately in need.
7. The EU strongly condemns the indiscriminate attacks, atrocities, killings, conflict-related
sexual violence, abuses of human rights and serious violations of international humanitarian law
which are perpetrated by Da'esh and other terrorist groups, against all civilians, including against
Christians and other religious and ethnic groups. The EU supports international efforts and initiatives
to address these issues. The EU condemns Da'esh's deliberate destruction of cultural heritage
in Syria and Iraq, which amount to a war crime under international law.
8. Those responsible for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Syria must be held accountable.
The EU expresses its deepest concern about the findings of the Independent International Commission
of Inquiry on Syria. The allegations of torture and executions based on the evidence presented
by the Caesar report are also of great concern. The EU reiterates its call to the UN Security
Council to refer the situation in Syria to the International Criminal Court.
9. The EU supports the efforts of the Global Coalition to counter Da'esh in Syria and Iraq.
As a consequence of its policies and actions, the Assad regime cannot be a partner in the fight
against Dae'sh. Action against Da'esh needs to be closely coordinated among all partners, and
needs clearly to target Da'esh, Jabhat al-Nusra, and the other UN-designated terrorist groups.
10. The recent Russian military attacks that go beyond Dae'sh and other UN-designated terrorist
groups, as well as on the moderate opposition, are of deep concern, and must cease immediately.
So too must the Russian violations of the sovereign airspace of neighbouring countries.
This military escalation risks prolonging the conflict, undermining a political process, aggravating
the humanitarian situation and increasing radicalization. Our aim should be to de-escalate the
conflict. The EU calls on Russia to focus its efforts on the common objective of achieving a political
solution to the conflict. In this context it urges Russia to push for a reduction of violence
and implementation of confidence-building measures by the Syrian Regime along the provisions of
UNSC Resolution 2139.
11. The EU will intensify humanitarian diplomacy and seek ways to improve access and protection
as well as to promote humanitarian principles and local consensus on guidelines for the delivery
of aid.
12. The EU has substantially increased its financial efforts to support those who have fled
the conflict, within and outside Syria, with new commitments to humanitarian aid and to longer-term
work supporting the resilience of refugees in the neighbourhood. The EU and its Member states
have already provided €4 billion for relief and recovery assistance to those affected by the conflict
inside Syria and refugees and host communities in neighbouring countries. The EU and its Member
States will continue to provide humanitarian assistance through the UN, ICRC and international
NGOs. At the same time, the EU will increase its longer-term development and stabilization assistance,
to these and other partners, including through the EU Regional Trust Fund recently established
in response to the Syrian Crisis (the "Madad Fund") which has now been equipped with over €500
million in EU funding to be matched by efforts from EU Member States and other countries. The
EU calls on other countries to sustain and increase their own contributions in response to the
Syria crisis. The Council agreed specifically on the need to increase the level of cooperation
and partnership with Lebanon, Jordan and Turkey to ensure equal access to shelter, education,
health and livelihoods for refugees and their host communities with the support of additional
EU assistance.
####
It must be better to stick to EU & US failure. What could possibly go wrong by having your
Gulf allies send large quantities of weapons to jihadists?
EU foreign affairs chief Federica Mogherini took a cautious position on Russian intervention
in Syria, compared to the critical tone of a communiqué of the Union's foreign ministers adopted
today (12 October).
…For her part, Mogherini refrained from qualifying the Russian intervention as bad or good.
Speaking about the hot issue ahead of the ministerial meeting, she said:
"I guess it is much more complicated than just saying "positive" or "negative". It is for sure
a game changer."
But she added that "interventions against Daesh have to be clearly against Daesh and other
terrorist groups, as defined by the UN"…
####
Good crock of s/t vs. bad crock of s/t? Don't take the communique too seriously Russia? They
make noise because they are doing nothing and can't even agree to do anything apart from put some
words together on the page.
All of it is a malodorous crock of shit. The EU evidenced no particular interest in the plight
of civilians in Syria up to this point, began to get interested and then almost wholly in a not-particularly-sympathetic
way when floods of refugees were released from Turkey to stream into Europe recently, and have
been in crisis mode only for the last two weeks since Russia has taken a hand at the request of
the Syrian government. There was lackluster interest in a no-fly zone and humanitarian corridors
until then, because the west judged it was just a matter of a few more weeks and Assad would fall,
without the west doing much of anything at all. Then it would remain only to swoop in, divest
the rebel militias of their prize and pick a new western-friendly government of diaspora exiles.
The western press is playing its usual game of simply alluding to facts until they become facts
without any actual substantiation ever having been offered. Russia is deliberately bombing civilians
and civilian-only infrastructure such as hospitals and schools because the western press says
so. Almost a fifth of Russian cruise missiles fell irresponsibly on the territory of another country
they passed over, because the western press says so based on information they were given by unnamed
western officials, although Russia claims to have positive battle-damage assessments for every
missile fired and Iran says the western allegation is untrue. But the west always gets the benefit
of the doubt, just as if it had never been caught in a lie before.
Per a commentator on a Yahoo story on Syrian gains against the rebels:
"They [KSA, UAE states]
fund and supplies ISIS and Al Qaeda even drop supplies from the air to terrorists through their
clandestine ops which our government [USA] knows well and does nothing."
Made me wonder if the reason for SU-30s is to shoot these planes down – a no-fly zone aimed
at shutting down these supply drops. The Saker pounds away at the point that Russian air assets
in Syria are insufficient to enforce a no-fly zone against NATO. However, as just alluded, the
purpose of the SU-30s may simply be to stop use of air drops to supply the terrorists.
Given the missile and radars on the SU-30s, a hand full should be enough to clear the skies
of transport planes over Syria. Russian naval ships can provide the radar coverage to identify
such aircraft and vector the Su-30s as required and the rest should be history.
"... US policy is often clueless, often based on some Beltway fantasy, but there are very real
people at stake here, not just tiresome geopolitics. Most US policy derives from stupid
game-playing, but some part derives from genuine, well-founded fear of the consequences of
inaction. ..."
"Documents recently obtained from Cheney's Energy Task Force as the result of a Freedom of
Information Act lawsuit filed by the public-interest group Judicial Watch indicate that Cheney
and his colleagues had their sites on the black gold under the Iraqi desert well before Sept.
11.
"Last July, the Commerce Department finally turned over records that included "a map of Iraqi
oilfields, pipelines, refineries and terminals, as well as two charts detailing Iraqi oil and
gas projects and 'Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts'," according to Judicial Watch's
subsequent press release. There were also similar maps and charts for Saudi Arabia and the United
Arab Emirates. The documents were dated March 2001."
If only Bush and Cheney had listened to people who knew something about the oil industry and
believed in the free market …
Layman 10.04.15 at 8:38 pm
"To cite just one example, cutting off aid to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Israel would
cause a huge international crisis."
I'm afraid it's not at all clear that the resulting crisis would be 'huger' than the ones we
get for the aid. U.S. aid to Israel (for example) is almost entirely military aid. We're
sponsoring Israel's efforts to colonize the West Bank and to periodically destabilize Lebanon.
These are international crises, and we're funding them.
@16 "the overwhelming majority of civilian deaths are down to the regime."
That is not what I get from The Angry Arab News Service, and no offense but I trust that As'ad
AbuKhalil knows what he's talking about.
Peter T 10.04.15 at 9:17 am
Okay. So we airlift Allawis, Druze, Syrian Shia, Christians (30 per cent or so of the
Syrian population) out, re-settle them in Arizona and leave the Islamists to fight it out. Oh,
wait, we need to airlift out the Assyrians and Yezidi too. Then the Iraqi Shia and ISIS can
fight it out. Iran will certainly intervene in force, but not our worry. Oh, and we'd better
get most Jordanians out of the way too.
US policy is often clueless, often based on some Beltway fantasy, but there are very real
people at stake here, not just tiresome geopolitics. Most US policy derives from stupid
game-playing, but some part derives from genuine, well-founded fear of the consequences of
inaction.
Donald Johnson 10.04.15 at 5:46 pm
And here is a link to a Physicians for Social Responsibility paper which discusses the
various studies and estimates of the death toll in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Their
numbers are on the higher side–
It was BUK -- Video contains important finding that fragment of missile paint and elements from the
missile warhead in pilot bodies. It is mainly non technical
watch-v=KDiLEyT9spI and does not
cover conflicting evidence. So at last we know that there was a BUK missile the downs the airliner. I
doubt that Dutch investigators make a mistake on this aspect of cause of the tragedy (that does not
explains accurate round holes is the part of cockpit wreckage though). Still the set of old
questions remains. But it we
assume this was BUK, why nobody saw the dense smoke trail of the rocket in daylight and perfect
weather. The dense smoke trail that should still be visible at the moment when the plane was hit and
when several thousand eyes were watching the area in notably absent.
A Buk surface-to-air missile downed flight MH17, Dutch investigators have said as they unveiled a
reconstruction of the plane that showed huge shrapnel damage to the cockpit and front section.
Tjibbe Joustra, the chairman of the Dutch safety board, said the Malaysia Airlines plane was hit
by a 9N314M warhead on 17 July 2014, as it flew at 33,000ft (10,000 metres) above eastern
Ukraine. The warhead was fitted to a "9M28 missile" fired from a Russian-built Buk missile system,
he confirmed.
Speaking in front of the reconstructed plane – pieced together from parts of recovered debris,
fitted around a metal skeleton – Joustra said all other scenarios to explain the disaster, which
killed all 298 people on board, had been ruled out.
An animated video was shown to journalists at the Gilze-Rijen airbase in the
Netherlands, where the plane was part reassembled over three months. It showed the Buk missile
exploding on the left-hand side of the cockpit. Thousands of metal objects were ejected, with hundreds
then penetrating the plane with tremendous force, Joustra said.
The impact and ensuing pressure drop killed the three pilots instantly, he said. On-board microphones
captured the moment of impact – "a sound ping". This allowed investigators to determine the devastating
blast occurred on the upper-left hand side of the cockpit.
The damage was starkly visible. The front section of the Boeing 777 below the pilot's port window
was perforated with large shrapnel holes. Other parts were relatively unscathed. Five windows in
the business class section were visible, together with a door where the passengers entered. The pilot's
seats had been remounted in the cockpit – a haunting sight.
The plane's nose was missing, together with much of its upper front half. The colours of Malaysia
Airlines – a red, blue stripe – were still visible. Exit holes left by shrapnel could be seen on
the other right side; exploding fragments had ripped through the fuselage.
According to Joustra, the passenger plane broke up mid-air. The cockpit and the floor of the business
class tore away almost instantly from the main body and crashed. The rest of the plane continued
flying for about five miles in an easterly direction, hitting the ground about a minute to a minuter
and a half later. Debris was scattered over 50 sq km.
In a briefing on Tuesday morning to relatives of the victims, which took place in The Hague, Joustra
said the passengers on board – two-thirds of whom were Dutch nationals – would have been unconscious
within seconds.
The board had previously made clear its findings would not deal with blame and liability; a criminal
investigation by the Dutch prosecutor's office is scheduled to conclude in early 2016.
Joustra said the Buk had been fired from a 320 sq km area of eastern Ukraine, the
scene of a conflict between pro-Russia separatists backed by Moscow and Ukrainian
government forces. He said "further forensic investigation" would be needed to determine
the exact launch site.
The Netherlands, Ukraine and Russia had all carried out their own simulations into the missile's
probable trajectory.
Russia was the only one of seven countries involved in the report's preparation that dissented
from its central conclusions, Joustra said, adding that Moscow believed "it was impossible to determine
the type of missile or warhead with any certainty".
It is widely assumed that Russia-backed separatists were responsible for bringing down MH17, but
the US has stopped short of blaming Moscow directly. The Kremlin has blamed Kiev – variously suggesting
that a Ukrainian military jet shot down the Boeing 777, or that a missile was launched from a government-held
area.
The Russian simulation includes areas under Ukrainian government control. The other simulations
suggest the Buk was fired from separatist areas. An
open source investigation by the website Bellingcat, published last week, tracks the Buk from
a Russian military base in Kursk. It was then smuggled across the Ukrainian border.
In Moscow, the makers of
Buk missile systems, Almaz-Antey, gave a press conference on Tuesday morning, apparently to distract
attention from the Dutch report.
The manufacturer said it had performed two experiments it says prove one of its missiles could
not have been launched from areas under pro-Russia separatist control.
The Dutch safety board report, published in English and Dutch, concedes that family members had
to wait "an unnecessarily long period of time" for formal confirmation that their loved ones were
dead. The Dutch authorities "lacked management and coordination", he said.
The victims came from nine countries, including Malaysia and Australia, and with 10 victims from
the UK.
Joustra also said there was a simple, "dispiriting" answer to the question: why was MH17 allowed
to fly above eastern Ukraine? It had not occurred to anybody that the airspace was unsafe for civilian
jets at cruising altitude, he said. This was despite 60 Ukrainian aircraft and helicopters had been
downed since the start of the Russia-Ukraine conflict in spring 2014.
About 160 civilian planes flew over the area on the day of the disaster. Three were in "close
proximity" when the Buk was fired, he said. Ukraine should have closed its airspace to civilian traffic,
he added.
RAF given green light to shoot down hostile Russian jets in Syria
As relations between the West and Russia steadily deteriorate, Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots
have been given the go-ahead to shoot down Russian military jets when flying missions over Syria
and Iraq, if they are endangered by them. The development comes with warnings that the UK and
Russia are now "one step closer" to being at war.
"The first thing a British pilot will do is to try to avoid a situation where an air-to-air
attack is likely to occur - you avoid an area if there is Russian activity," an unidentified source
from the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) told the Sunday Times. "But if a pilot is fired
on or believes he is about to be fired on, he can defend himself. We now have a situation where
a single pilot, irrespective of nationality, can have a strategic impact on future events."
The headline is a bit over the top, don't you think?
The same rule applies to all combat pilots of any nation, as indeed the (as usual) unidentified
source is quoted as saying.
That's why the US navy shot down an Iranian airliner, isn't it: the warship thought it was
being threatened by the passenger aircraft.
Trigger happy, poorly trained, panic-stricken, glory-seeking and incompetent – what else can
describe the US Navy's shoot-down? How would they perform in a real war with an adversary able
to hit back hard?
Yes to the first, and no to the second. The U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian airliner they claim
they mistook for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, although it (1) took off from a known civil airport following
a commercial air route and within the air safety corridor, (2) was displaying the IFF interrogator
trace for civil aviation, (3) was correlated to a civil aviation radar emitter rather than the
AN/AWG-9 radar associated with the F-14, and which is quite distinctive on ESM gear and (4) was
not descending or following an attack profile. The USS VINCENNES stationed itself directly underneath
an air traffic corridor within Iranian airspace, so that normal air traffic passed directly over
it; obviously, for one half of its transit, an aircraft would close the VINCENNES, and for the
remainder it would be opening after it passed overhead. I'd have to look up again if any warnings
were passed, but if there were the pilot likely did not think the surface unit was talking to
him, since he was flying the same route he did every day or week or with whatever degree of regularity.
So if he was told to turn away he likely did not think it applied to him, as few commercial pilots
would be able to conceive of the arrogance of a ship's captain who would park his ship in Iranian
territorial waters and then demand that all the country's civil aviation reroute themselves around
his position.
"Flight MH17 crashed as a result of the detonation of a warhead outside the airplane above the
left-hand side of the cockpit," said Tjibbe Joustra, chairman of the Dutch Safety Board, using a
common reference to the flight number. The explosion
tore off the forward part of the plane, which
broke up in the air. The crash killed all 298 people aboard; the investigation found that many
died instantly, while others quickly lost consciousness. "It is likely that the occupants were barely
able to comprehend their situation," the board found.
... ... ...
The report is unlikely to produce consensus. Based on the impact pattern, the impact angle
and other data, the Dutch board concluded that the missile originated in an area of about 320 square
kilometers (about 123 square miles) in eastern Ukraine. But Russian experts say the area must
be smaller, and Ukrainian experts say it was smaller still.
The team of investigators was led by the Netherlands but included members from four other countries
heavily affected by the crash: Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine.
... ... ...
From the outset, the Russian government has tried to offer alternative versions of what caused
the plane to break up over eastern Ukraine.
Initially, the Defense Ministry presented what generals said was radar data indicating that
a Ukrainian fighter jet had flown nearby, possibly shooting down the Malaysia Airlines flight. This
year, officials with Almaz-Antey, the state corporation that manufactures the Buk antiaircraft missiles,
held a news conference in Moscow to say that they believed one of their missiles had shot down the
plane, but that an analysis of the angle of impact showed it must have been fired from territory
controlled by the Ukrainian Army.
Then, this month, after a Ukrainian security official had suggested in an interview with the Dutch
news media that shrapnel removed from the bodies of the victims proved a Buk was to blame,
Tass, the Russian state news agency, quoted an independent expert objecting that it was too
early to conclude such a missile brought down the plane.
Tass quoted the expert, Ivan P. Konovalov, the director of a Moscow research center, the Center
for Strategic Trends, as saying that if the Dutch Safety Board indeed "reaches a firm conclusion
that the Boeing was struck by a Buk antiaircraft rocket, then it should be taken into consideration
that at that time only the armed services of Ukraine had these complexes and the People's Republics
of Donbas had no such complex systems then or now." He was referring to pro-Russian separatist governments
set up in the Donbas region in eastern Ukraine.
In Moscow, officials at Almaz-Antey staged a dueling presentation on Tuesday with a dazzling element:
the company blew up a civilian airline fuselage with one of its missiles, and showed the blast on
video.
The experiment that shredded the cockpit section of a decommissioned Il-86 airliner, company officials
said, indicated the Ukrainian military fired the missile that brought down the Boeing, without elaborating
on why.
In the sky over Ukraine, the Russian officials said, the shrapnel struck the plane from an angle
indicating the missile was launched from Ukrainian-held territory. Also, they said, Buk missiles
in the Russian arsenal explode in a cloud of shrapnel that has jagged edges, described as having
a "double-T" form. These, they said, leave a characteristic "butterfly"-shaped hole in airplane fuselages.
The Russians insisted that no such holes were found in the wreckage; the Dutch report suggests otherwise.
In any case, Yan V. Novikov, the director of Almaz-Antey, said the Ukrainian government bore
responsibility for allowing the flight over a war zone. "I cannot say they are guilty, or not guilty,
but the obligations of the country where a military conflict is underway is to inform aviation companies,
or close its airspace," he said.
"... Ron's excellent charts are telling me that Opec is not going to be producing as much or
MORE oil on a daily basis, if any, very much longer. With only three countries carrying the
load, and all the others combined just holding steady over the last few years, DEPLETION is
sure to take a bite out of those other smaller countries production pretty soon. ..."
"... It looks as if the only countries with any REAL hope of increasing production enough to
really matter on the world stage, near term, are Iran and Iraq and the USA. The USA is out of
the running until prices go up and then, according to what I read here, it will take a year or
maybe two to ramp up again. ..."
"... Nobody can predict when oil prices will rise with any accuracy. I will suggest it will be
in the future, maybe late 2016, maybe not. ..."
OPEC says world upstream spending will be down only 20% in 2015
but North American upstream spending will drop by 35%. I guess that is because of the big drop in
shale spending.
Above is the OPEC projection for US production out to Q4-16.
Looks optimistic to me. For the above to be true, there must be some underlining assumption
regarding increasing oil prices to restart drilling.
Ron Patterson, 10/12/2015 at 1:01 pm
Yes those numbers are totally unrealistic, just as unrealistic as the US Short Term Energy
Outlook numbers. In the chart below US Total Liquids are the left axis while C+C numbers are
the right axis.
Total liquids for the US STEO includes refinery process gain. And they even count refinery
process gain on imported oil. So it looks like the OPEC MOMR numbers do not include refinery
process gain.
AlexS, 10/12/2015 at 2:53 pm
The EIA expects U.S. non-C+C liquids supply to increase by 1.17mb/d between January 2014
and December 2016, of which 1.03 mb/d – NGPLs.
Was he trading based on IEA, EIA or OPEC forecast numbers? :)
Old Farmer Mac, 10/12/2015 at 2:31 pm
Ron's excellent charts are telling me that Opec is not going to be producing as much or
MORE oil on a daily basis, if any, very much longer. With only three countries carrying the
load, and all the others combined just holding steady over the last few years, DEPLETION is
sure to take a bite out of those other smaller countries production pretty soon.
It looks as if the only countries with any REAL hope of increasing production enough to
really matter on the world stage, near term, are Iran and Iraq and the USA. The USA is out of
the running until prices go up and then, according to what I read here, it will take a year or
maybe two to ramp up again.
Am I right about this? Are there any other countries that have any real hope of
substantially increasing production near term?
I am thinking about buying a LOT (for an individual) of diesel fuel as soon as I think the
price is starting up again. I know, predicting IS HARD , but a bigger stash of diesel is as
good as silver and gold in a jar buried in the back yard. Will probably stock up on lime and
fertilizer as well, these inputs are extremely sensitive to and correlate with oil and gas
prices.
Dennis Coyne, 10/12/2015 at 2:53 pm
Hi Old Farmer Mac,
Just take my price predictions and assume the opposite will be true, or flip a coin :)
Nobody can predict when oil prices will rise with any accuracy. I will suggest it will be
in the future, maybe late 2016, maybe not.
Petro, 10/12/2015 at 10:26 pm
…there will be no price rise, just the volatility of: "…a bomb went off here…", "…a war
started there…" and "…a russian jet was shot down over there…somewhere…".
be well,
P.S: the "hoard" of diesel is not a bad idea, OFM
Old Farmer Mac, 10/12/2015 at 2:52 pm
This new SEC regulation might help people interested in peak oil and oil prices come by
more and better data.
It will probably go into force second half next year from the looks of things.
OPEC has reached a plateau, oscillating between 28 mbpd to 31.6 mbpd since 10 years now.
World production peaked so far in June. Saudi Arabia production in decline since June, US
production in decline since several months. Peak oil in 2015? I am curious to see the December
production…
Dennis Coyne, 10/12/2015 at 6:23 pm
It looks like the latest OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report predicts that World Oil Supply and
Demand will be in balance by 3Q16, if OPEC output remains at 3Q15 levels. There will still be
a supply overhang which may require another quarter or two of either decreased supply or
increased demand (or both) to bring oil stocks back to normal levels.
As always, these forecasts are notoriously inaccurate so oil prices could remain low until
2018 if demand is lower or supply is higher than OPEC forecasts, or they might rise in early
2016 if the opposite is true. It's a coin flip.
Greenbub, 10/12/2015 at 7:43 pm
Wouldn't most oil producers go out of business if prices stayed low until 2018?
Saudi Arabia has reportedly resorted to spending cuts to cope with a budget deficit caused by
the steep decline of oil prices over the past year.
Bloomberg reported Oct. 8 that the Saudi Finance Ministry has directed government agencies not to
embark on any new spending initiatives for the rest of the year. It also froze government hiring
and promotions, suspended the purchase of furniture and vehicles and urged revenue collectors to
accelerate their operations.
...oil accounts for around 90 percent of Saudi revenue. But the kingdom's finances also have
been strained by its involvement in wars in Syria and Yemen.
As a result, Saudi Arabia's ratio of debt to GDP is in danger of rising to 33 percent in five
years, according to a new report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The report says the
Saudi budget has gone from a surplus to a deficit of more than 20 percent of GDP, more than twice
as deep as those that beset the United States and Britain in 2008 and 2009, the darkest period of
the recent recession
... ... ...
The spending cuts aren't Saudi Arabia's first effort to manage its deficit. Bloomberg quoted
other anonymous sources as saying Riyadh had planned to raise at least $24 billion from bond
sales by the end of 2015. This was in response to a drop in the kingdom's foreign assets, which
at that time had fallen for the seventh consecutive month to $654.5 billion, its lowest in more
than two years.
"... When we look at the next few quarters, we expect U.S. oil production to decline because
of low oil prices and in Iraq, production growth will be much slower than in the past. And the
demand is creeping up, ..."
"... So therefore, to think that [low] oil prices will be with us forever may not be the right
way of thinking ..."
"... Despite its warning, Goldman Sachs said there was a less than 50 percent chance of oil
falling to $20 per barrel. Instead, its base case scenario for 2016 was $45 per barrel -a level
that Birol said was still too low for U.S. shale producers to maintain current production.
..."
... Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA),
told CNBC on Tuesday that low prices would prompt U.S. producers to cut output, creating upward
price pressure.
"When we look at the next few quarters, we expect U.S. oil production to decline because
of low oil prices and in Iraq, production growth will be much slower than in the past. And the
demand is creeping up," Birol told CNBC on Tuesday from the Oil & Money conference.
"So therefore, to think that [low] oil prices will be with us forever may not be the right
way of thinking."
... ... ....
Whether or not U.S. shale players will cut production in response to ongoing low prices is a
moot point however. They could instead respond by increasing production in order to satisfy
creditors eager for results. Plus, against some odds, shale producers have managed to lower
productions costs, although these remain high in comparison to conventional oil production.
Despite its warning, Goldman Sachs said there was a less than 50 percent chance of oil
falling to $20 per barrel. Instead, its base case scenario for 2016 was $45 per barrel -a level
that Birol said was still too low for U.S. shale producers to maintain current production.
"It is proven it is a very resilient type of production, but this level of prices, $45, $50 is
not good enough to induce reinvestments and for production to continue to grow. Therefore, we
expect as of next year, production growth will decline in the United States," Birol told CNBC.
The secretary general of OPEC, Abadall El-Badri, also forecast that oil production from
countries outside his group would fall next year.
... ... ...
"We see that non-OPEC supply is declining and in 2016, we see there is an increase in demand …
so in a nutshell, there is a balance in the market in 2016. How much this will reflect on the
price I really cannot tell," he later added.
... ... ...
Standard & Poor's (S&P) appeared more bullish on oil prices than Goldman, forecasting on
Tuesday that Brent oil would average $55 per barrel in 2016, up from an average of $50 for the
remainder of this year.
"... this disaster would have overtaken the fracking patch even if oil prices had not tanked, because
its root problem was the hideous decline rate of fracking wells, most of which are exhausted within
four years. ..."
"... Imagine if they built houses of water-soluble materials. You buy a house for $200,000 or so,
and at the end of four years its uninhabitable and worthless, and you have to buy another one. You might
have been making good money those four years, but enough to set aside $50,000 a year? Thats been the
fracking problem from the beginning, and virtually every company in the business has had to borrow heavily
– actually, recklessly - to stay in the game. ..."
As I've reported here over and over, this disaster would have overtaken the fracking patch
even if oil prices had not tanked, because its root problem was the hideous decline rate of fracking
wells, most of which are exhausted within four years.
Imagine if they built houses of water-soluble materials. You buy a house for $200,000 or
so, and at the end of four years it's uninhabitable and worthless, and you have to buy another
one. You might have been making good money those four years, but enough to set aside $50,000 a
year? That's been the fracking problem from the beginning, and virtually every company in the
business has had to borrow heavily – actually, recklessly - to stay in the game.
Which is over. For most. There will always be some operators diligently wringing out the last
few drops of combustibles, but the Brave New World of American oil supremacy in a cowed world,
the age of American energy security, the renewed American oil economy - all creations of marketing
departments in search of the proverbial greater-fool investors and lenders - are toast.
According to driller Baker Hughes, the number of active oil rigs fell by 9 to 605, putting the
count at the lowest level since the week ending July 30, 2010. The combined tally of oil and gas
rigs fell 14 from last week to 795, the lowest since May 2002. We saw a renewed drop in the oil
rig count last week, which fell by 26, the biggest decline since the rig count topped out a year
ago.
Earlier this week, Baker Hughes reported that the average US rig count for September was 848,
down 35 from the prior month.
"OUR BROTHERS ARE there," Khalid said when he heard I was going to Ukraine. "Buy a local SIM card
when you get there, send me the number and then wait for someone to call you."
Khalid, who uses
a pseudonym, leads the Islamic State's underground branch in Istanbul. He came from Syria to help
control the flood of volunteers arriving in Turkey from all over the world, wanting to join the global
jihad. Now, he wanted to put me in touch with Ruslan, a "brother" fighting with Muslims in Ukraine.
The "brothers" are members of ISIS and other underground Islamic organizations, men who have abandoned
their own countries and cities. Often using pseudonyms and fake identities, they are working and
fighting in the Middle East, Africa and the Caucasus, slipping across borders without visas. Some
are fighting to create a new Caliphate - heaven on earth. Others - like Chechens, Kurds and Dagestanis
- say they are fighting for freedom, independence and self-determination. They are on every continent,
and in almost every country, and now they are in Ukraine, too.
In the West, most look at the war in Ukraine as simply a battle between Russian-backed separatists
and the Ukrainian government. But the truth on the ground is now far more complex, particularly when
it comes to the volunteer battalions fighting on the side of Ukraine. Ostensibly state-sanctioned,
but not necessarily state-controlled, some have been supported by Ukrainian oligarchs, and others
by private citizens. Less talked about, however, is the Dudayev battalion, named after the first
president of Chechnya, Dzhokhar Dudayev, and founded by Isa Munayev, a Chechen commander who fought
in two wars against Russia.
Ukraine is now becoming an important stop-off point for the brothers, like Ruslan. In Ukraine,
you can buy a passport and a new identity. For $15,000, a fighter receives a new name and a legal
document attesting to Ukrainian citizenship. Ukraine doesn't belong to the European Union, but it's
an easy pathway for immigration to the West. Ukrainians have few difficulties obtaining visas to
neighboring Poland, where they can work on construction sites and in restaurants, filling the gap
left by the millions of Poles who have left in search of work in the United Kingdom and Germany.
You can also do business in Ukraine that's not quite legal. You can earn easy money for the brothers
fighting in the Caucasus, Syria and Afghanistan. You can "legally" acquire unregistered weapons to
fight the Russian-backed separatists, and then export them by bribing corrupt Ukrainian customs officers.
"Our goal here is to get weapons, which will be sent to the Caucasus," Ruslan, the brother who
meets me first in Kiev, admits without hesitation.
WITH HIS WHITE hair and beard, Ruslan is still physically fit, even at 57. He's
been a fighter his entire adult life. Born in a small mountain village in the Caucasus, on the border
between Dagestan and Chechnya, Ruslan belongs to an ethnic minority known as the Lak, who are predominantly
Sunni Muslim.
The world that Ruslan inhabits - the world of the brothers - is something new. When he first became
a fighter, there wasn't any Internet or cell phones, or cameras on the street, or drones. Ruslan
joined the brothers when the Soviet Union collapsed, and he went to fight for a better world, first
against the Russians in Chechnya and Dagestan during the first Chechen war in the mid-1990s. He then
moved to Azerbaijan, where he was eventually arrested in 2004 on suspicion of maintaining contact
with al Qaeda.
Even though Ruslan admits to fighting with Islamic organizations, he claims the actual basis for
the arrest in Azerbaijan - illegal possession of weapons - was false. Authorities couldn't find anything
suspicious where he was living (Ruslan was staying at the time with his "brothers" in the jihad movement)
but in his wife's home they found a single hand grenade. Ruslan was charged with illegal weapons
possession and sent to prison for several years.
In prison, he says he was tortured and deliberately housed in a cell with prisoners infected with
tuberculosis. Ruslan took his case to the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France, accusing
the authorities in Azerbaijan of depriving him of due process. The court eventually agreed, and asked
the Azerbaijani government to pay Ruslan 2,400 euros in compensation, plus another 1,000 euros for
court costs.
But when Ruslan was released from prison, he didn't want to stay in Azerbaijan, fearing he would
be rearrested, or even framed for a crime and again accused of terrorism. "Some of our people disappear
and are never found," he says. "There was one brother [who disappeared], and when he was brought
for burial, a card was found showing that he was one of 30 people held in detention in Russia."
In Russia, a warrant was issued for Riuan's arrest. Returning to his small mountain village was
out of the question. If he goes back, his family will end up paying for what he does, anyhow. "They
get to us through our families," he says. He condemns those who refused to leave their own country
and fight the infidels. This was the choice: either stay, or go abroad where "you can breathe freedom."
"Man is born free," Ruslan says. "We are slaves of God and not the slaves of people, especially
those who are against their own people, and break the laws of God. There is only one law: the law
of God."
After his release from prison in Azerbaijan, Ruslan became the eternal wanderer, a rebel - and
one of the brothers now in Ukraine. He came because Munayev, now head of the Dudayev battalion, decided
the brothers should fight in Ukraine. "I am here today because my brother, Isa, called us and said,
'It's time to repay your debt,'" Ruslan says. "There was a time when the brothers from Ukraine came
[to Chechnya] and fought against the common enemy, the aggressor, the occupier."
That debt is to Ukrainians like Oleksandr Muzychko, who became one of the brothers, even though
he never converted to Islam. Muzyczko, along with other Ukrainian volunteers, joined Chechen fighters
and took part in the first Chechen war against Russia. He commanded a branch of Ukrainian volunteers,
called "Viking," which fought under famed Chechen militant leader Shamil Basayev. Muzychko died last
year in Ukraine
under mysterious circumstances.
Ruslan has been in Ukraine for almost a year, and hasn't seen his family since he arrived. Their
last separation lasted almost seven years. He's never had time to raise children, or even really
to get to know them. Although he's a grandfather, he only has one son - a small family by Caucasian
standards, but better for him, since a smaller family costs less. His wife calls often and asks for
money, but Ruslan rarely has any to give her.
IN THE 17th century, the area to the east of the Dnieper River was known as the "wilderness,"
an ungoverned territory that attracted refugees, criminals and peasants - a place beyond the reach
of the Russian empire. Today, this part of Ukraine plays a similar role, this time for Muslim brothers.
In eastern Ukraine, the green flag of jihad flies over some of the private battalions' bases.
For many Muslims, like Ruslan, the war in Ukraine's Donbass region is just the next stage in the
fight against the Russian empire. It doesn't matter to them whether their ultimate goal is a Caliphate
in the Middle East, or simply to have the Caucuses free of Russian influence - the brothers are united
not by nation, but by a sense of community and solidarity.
But the brothers barely have the financial means for fighting or living. They are poor, and very
rarely receive grants from the so-called Islamic humanitarian organizations. They must earn money
for themselves, and this is usually done by force. Amber is one of the ideas Ruslan has for financing
the "company of brothers" fighting in eastern Ukraine - the Dudayev battalion, which includes Muslims
from several nations, Ukrainians, Georgians, and even a few Russians.
The brothers had hoped the Ukrainian authorities would appreciate their dedication and willingness
to give their lives in defense of Ukrainian sovereignty, but they miscalculated. Like other branches
of fighters - Aidar, Azov and Donbass - the government, for the most part, ignores them. They're
armed volunteers outside the control of Kiev, and Ukraine's politicians also fear that one day, instead
of fighting Russians in the east, the volunteers will turn on the government in Kiev. So ordinary
people help the volunteers, but it's not enough. The fighters associated with the Ukrainian nationalist
Right Sector get money, cars and houses from the rich oligarchs.
Ruslan has a different plan. He's afraid that if they begin stealing from the rich, the Ukrainian
government will quickly declare their armed branch illegal. He's decided to work in the underground
economy - uncontrolled by the state - which the brothers know best.
Back in the '90s, the amber mines in the vast forests surrounding the city of Rivne were state-owned
and badly run, so residents began illegally mining; it was a chance at easy money. Soon, however,
the mafia took over. For the right daily fee, miners could work and sell amber to the mafia at a
fixed price: $100 per kilogram. The mafia conspired with local militia, prosecutors and the governor.
That was the way business worked.
As a result, although Ukraine officially produces 3 tons of amber annually, more than 15 tons
are illegally exported to Poland each year. There, the ore is processed and sold at a substantial
profit. The Rivne mines operate 24 hours a day. Hundreds of people with shovels in hand search the
forest; they pay less to the mafia, but they extract less amber and earn less. The better off are
those who have a water pump. Those people pump water at high pressure into the earth between the
trees, until a cavity 2 to 3 meters deep forms. Amber, which is lighter than water, rises to the
surface.
At one point, Ruslan disappeared in Rivne for several weeks. When he returned, he was disappointed;
he'd failed to convince the local mafia to cooperate with the brothers' fight for an independent
Ukraine. But now, he has other arguments to persuade them. His men are holding up the mines, by not
allowing anyone into the forest. Either the local gangsters share their profits, or no one will get
paid.
Ruslan doesn't like this job. He knows it won't bring him any glory, and could land him in prison.
He would have preferred to be among the fighters at the front lines, where everything is clear and
clean. He says he can still fight, but he's already too old to really endure the rigors of battle,
even if he doesn't want to admit it. He may still be physically fit, but fighters don't usually last
longer than a few years. Then they lose their strength and will to fight.
He has other orders from
Munayev: he's supposed to organize a "direct response group" in Kiev. The group will be a sort of
rear echelon unit that take care of problems, like if someone tries to discredit the Dudayev battalion.
It will also collect debts or scare off competition. There's no doubt the new branch will work behind
the lines, where there isn't war, but there is money - as long as you know where to get it. If need
be, the direct response group volunteers will watch over the mines in Rivne, or "will acquire" money
from illegal casinos, which operate by the hundreds in Kiev.
Ruslan sends me photos of the group's criminal exploits: they came into the casinos with weapons,
and broke into the safes and slot machines. They disappeared quickly, and were never punished. The
money went to food, uniforms, boots, tactical vests and other equipment necessary for the fighters.
The mafia knows they can't beat them at this game. The brothers are too good, because they are armed
and experienced in battle. The police aren't interested in getting involved either. In the end, it's
illegal gambling.
I told Ruslan that it's a dangerous game. He laughed.
"It's child's play," he says. "We used to do this in Dagestan. No one will lift a finger. Don't
worry."
RUSLAN FINALLY DROVE me to see his "older brother," to Isa Munayev, and his secret base located
many miles west of Donetsk.
Riding in an old Chrysler that Ruslan bought in Poland, we drove for several hours, on potholed
and snowy roads. Ruslan had glued to the car one of the emblems of Ukraine's ATO, the so-called Anti-Terrorist
Operation, which includes both soldiers and volunteers in the fight against separatists.
The bumper sticker allows him to drive through police traffic stops without being held up - or
if he is stopped, they won't demand bribes as they do from other drivers. The ATO sticker, Ruslan's
camouflage uniform, and a gun in his belt are enough to settle matters. Policemen salute him and
wish him good luck.
He drives fast, not wanting to rest, sleep or even drink coffee. If he stops, it's to check the
compass on his belt to check the direction of Mecca. When it's time to pray, he stops the car, turns
off the engine, places his scarf in the snow and bows down to Allah.
Asked whether - after so many hardships, after so many years, and at his age, almost 60 now -
he would finally like to rest, he answered indignantly, "How could I feel tired?"
There's much more work to do, according to Ruslan. "There's been a small result, but we will rest
only when we've reached our goals," he says. "I'm carrying out orders, written in the Holy Quran.
'Listen to God, the Prophet.' And I listen to him and do what I'm told."
On the way into the city of Kryvyi Rih, we met with Dima, a young businessman - under 40 - but
already worth some $5 million. He's recently lost nearly $3 million from his business in Donetsk,
which has been hit hard by the war. Dima worked for Igor Kolomoisky, one of the oligarchs who had
been funding Ukraine's volunteer battalions. Dima and Ruslan have only known each other for a short
time. Ruslan claimed Dima owed him a lot of money, although it's unclear from what. Ruslan kept bothering
him, threatening to blackmail him. Finally, he got $20,000 from Dima.
That's not nearly enough to support the Dudayev battalion. But Ruslan had something bigger to
offer Dima: amber. Now, Dima was ready to talk. He came up with the idea to find buyers in the Persian
Gulf, including wealthy sheikhs. They would like to sell an entire house of amber: furniture, stairs,
floors, and inlaid stones. It only takes contacts, and Ruslan has them. The brothers from Saudi Arabia
like to help the jihad in the Caucasus and the Middle East.
The next day, Ruslan was behind the wheel again. The old Chrysler barely moved, its engine overheated.
A mechanic with an engineering degree and experience working in Soviet arms factories connected a
plastic bottle filled with dirty water to the radiator using a rubber hose.
"I don't know how long I'll last," Ruslan says suddenly. "It depends on God. I'll probably die
on this road. But I don't have any other road to take."
Photos: Tomasz Glowacki
Next: The Life and Death of a Chechen Commander
* At the request of the writer, "Ruslan" is identified by a pseudonym.
– The material for this story is part of BROTHERS, a documentary film being developed for Germany's
broadcaster WDR – Die Story and Autentic, produced by Propellerfilm, broadcast date May 18th, 10pm
(MET).
Brzezinski's claim that "Russia must work with, not against, the US in Syria" is false. The fact
of the matter is that "the US must work with, not against Russia in Syria," as Russia controls the
situation, is in accordance with international law, and is doing the right thing.
Washington's position is that only Washington decides and that Washington intends to unleash yet
more chaos on the world in the hope that it reaches Russia.
Several commentators, such as Mike Whitney and Stephen Lendman, have concluded, correctly, that
there is nothing that Washington can do about Russian actions against the Islamic State. The
neoconservatives' plan for a UN no-fly zone over Syria in order to push out the Russians is a pipedream.
No such resolution will come out of the UN. Indeed, the Russians have already established a de facto
no-fly zone.
Putin, without issuing any verbal threats or engaging in any name-calling, has decisively shifted
the power balance, and the world knows it.
... ... ...
worbsid
It is completely impossible for Obama to admit he is wrong. Note the 60 Min interview.
Mini-Me
Wondering which host the neocons will attach themselves to after having sucked the US dry.
A parasite should never kill its host.
A Lunatic
Following advice from the likes of Brzezinski is a large part of the problem......
BarnacleBill
I've posted this before, but... we can't ask the question too often: Who sold ISIS all those
Toyotas? ISIS didn't buy them themselves out of some Texas showroom, custom-built for desert warfare!
Right?
I must admit this certainly seems like a wild BEAST in action. Wreakless, seemingly unpredictable
causing mass chaos in its wake
Chad_the_short_...
Why don't they want to hit israel? I thought all muslims wanted a piece of Israel.
Macon Richardson
Do you really have to ask?
Reaper
ISIS are the nutured harpies of Barack, McCain and the neo-cons, which inflict death and mayhem
upon their targets. ISIS's evil is Barack's, McCain's and the neo-con" projected evil.
War crimes text (Geneva Convention): "To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited
at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
a)violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment
and torture;
Anyone making these bullshit comments about ISIS being the USA's extra-military arm (or Israel's)
has obviously NEVER BEEN IN THE MILITARY. Ditto any of the alphabet covert services.
ISIS is the enemy, period. They cleverly arose in a vacuum, and disperse at the first sign of
military opposition that has its shit together.
Yeah, go out there and tell some US special ops his buddy's death, maybe at the hands of ISIS,
was his own govt's doing.
Go do it you insulated fucks...I dare you. And see what happens. First rule in clandestine warfare;
don't shit in your own mess tent.
SgtShaftoe
I was in the military, enlisted and officer corps. I lost a few of good friends from my
unit in Iraq II. ISIS is absolutely a creation of CIA/DoD (at a distance, like planting seeds
and watering them), just as so many other tragedies have the blood squarely on the hands of the
same. I've seen it with my own eyes. Sorry dude, you're fucking wrong. When military people
see shit they shouldn't have seen, they're either brought in, or they accidentally fall out of
the sky. That's just the way it is.
Winston Smith 2009
"ISIS is the enemy, period."
Absolutely.
"They cleverly arose in a vacuum"
And what created that vacuum? The lack of the only thing, apparently, that can keep these religious
fanatics absolutely infesting that area of the world in line: a dictator. Who foolishly removed
the dictator in Iraq? These ignorant, arrogant assholes:
-----
In his book, "The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created A War Without End," Former Ambassador
to Croatia Peter Galbraith, the son of the late economist John Kenneth Galbraith, claims that
American leadership knew very little about the nature of Iraqi society and the problems it would
face after the overthrow of Saddam Hussein.
A year after his "Axis of Evil" speech before the U.S. Congress, President Bush met with three
Iraqi Americans, one of whom became postwar Iraq's first representative to the United States.
The three described what they thought would be the political situation after the fall of Saddam
Hussein. During their conversation with the President, Galbraith claims, it became apparent to
them that Bush was unfamiliar with the distinction between Sunnis and Shiites.
Galbraith reports that the three of them spent some time explaining to Bush that there are two
different sects in Islam--to which the President allegedly responded, "I thought the Iraqis were
Muslims!"
"From the president and the vice president down through the neoconservatives at the Pentagon,
there was a belief that Iraq was a blank slate on which the United States could impose its vision
of a pluralistic democratic society," said Galbraith. "The arrogance came in the form of a belief
that this could be accomplished with minimal effort and planning by the United States and that
it was not important to know something about Iraq."
-----
"Yeah, go out there and tell some US special ops his buddy's death, maybe at the hands of ISIS,
was his own govt's doing."
Only indirectly, but the astoundingly arrogant stupidity at the highest levels of his government
unnecessarily caused the conditions that led to it. It was and is their absolutely clueless meddling
that is the problem.
And don't get the idea that I'm a pacifist. Far from it. Geopolitical gaming including the use
of military force has been and always will be the way the world works. There's nothing I or anyone
else can do or ever will be able to do about that. Since that is the case, I want the "coaches"
of my "team" to be smart. They aren't.
I would agree it is in bad taste to go tell someone who is active military that they are fighting
an enemy their own govt created.
But
When something is hard to say, a lot of times its just the truth.
Now if the people listening aren't open minded to the possibility, well . . . there exists
the potential to get decked in the face by a marine.
Also, ISIS is not a direct branch of U.S. forces, its a group the U.S. funded, created to perpetuate
a war so that the U.S. can spill into borders outside of current combat zones .... the scenario
is sorta like well ..."O I know we attacked Iraq, but there is this new boogieman and he is called
Isis and BTW hes living in your garage so I have to invade your land now... "and so on and on
new invasion one after the other into new areas all blamed on the spread of isis ISIS IS HERE,
WE NEED TO INVADE, ISIS IS THERE WE NEED TO INVADE,
ISIS IS EVERYWHERE ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO U.S.
Thats probably what the strategy was, and it failed horribly when Russia exposed the hypocrisy
when it directly decided to engage and terminate the ISIS group , it revealed that the U.S. has
no intention of squelching ISIS, and now you have proof that the U.S. govt is just para-dropping
weapons in random locations all around the middle east..... they dont even care who gets the weapons,
they just want a bunch of pissed off people armed to the teeth . . .
The greatest hypocrisy of all is the fact that while the U.S. govt is dropping weapons all
over the place (its a weapons free-for-all bonanza ) right now, they are pushing Gun Control and
Confiscation here at home....
What does that say about your govt? when it is actively caught red handed arming terrorists,
while pushing gun confiscation domestically ??? lol its not that far of a stretch to connect the
dots... cmon
SuperRay
Salah you sure are righteous. Like you've been in the deep shit. Maybe we should call you four
leaf instead. What do you think?
Bullshitting a soldier who's risking his life for what he thinks is a noble cause, is unconscionable.
You're saying - trust your leaders, they know best. I say, what planet on you on, you fucking
moron? The neocon assholes who are guiding, or mis-guiding, policy in the middle east should be
lined up and shot for treason. Why is Russia destroying ISIS at blistering speed? Because they
want to destroy it. We could've done the same thing, but is we destroyed ISIS and 'won' the battle
against terrorism, the defense contractors might not make tons of money this year. We always need
an enemy. Get It? We've always been at war with Eurasia? There's no money for the Pentagon without
war, so we have to always have an enemy. Duh
datura
I feel awful that Russia is now almost alone in this enormous fight:-(....We in the West won't
help them. It feels like WWII again and Russians will have to bear the grunt alone again. Westerners
don't seem to change. We are practically good for nothing cowards. Sorry to say, but it is so.
And we even dare to judge them in any way??? We dare to judge their leader or their level of democracy?
It just makes me sick.
These is how Russian ladies, who fought in WWII, looked like. These seemingly fragile creatures...more
valiant than Western men at those times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kraFEWO7Z44
Dre4dwolf
They aren't alone, the U.S. is leaving care packages full of weapons and supplies all over
the middle east for Russia to discover. Its like an easter egg hunt, except there is no easter
because your in a Muslim shit-hole, and.... there are no bunnies, just pissed of Jihadis who want
to shoot you.
Better find the eggs before they do.
Mike Masr
And the US regime change in Ukraine resurrected Frankensteins' monster Nazism!
One week ago, when summarizing the current state of play in Syria,
we said that for Obama, "this is shaping up to be the most spectacular US foreign policy
debacle since Vietnam." Yesterday, in tacit confirmation of this assessment, the Obama administration
threw in the towel on one of the most contentious programs it has implemented in "fighting ISIS",
when the Defense Department announced it was abandoning the goal of a U.S.-trained Syrian force.
But this, so far, partial admission of failure only takes care of one part of Obama's problem: there
is the question of the "other" rebels supported by the US, those who are not part of the officially-disclosed
public program with the fake goal of fighting ISIS; we are talking, of course, about the nearly 10,000
CIA-supported "other rebels", or technically mercenaries, whose only task is to take down Assad.
The same "rebels" whose fate the
AP profiles today when it writes that the CIA began a covert operation in 2013 to arm,
fund and train a moderate opposition to Assad. Over that time, the CIA has trained an estimated
10,000 fighters, although the number still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear.
The effort was separate from the one run by the military, which trained militants willing
to promise to take on IS exclusively. That program was widely considered a failure, and
on Friday, the Defense Department announced it was abandoning the goal of a U.S.-trained Syrian
force, instead opting to equip established groups to fight IS.
It is this effort, too, that in the span of just one month Vladimir Putin has managed to render
utterly useless, as it is officially "off the books" and thus the US can't formally support these
thousands of "rebel-fighters" whose only real task was to repeat the "success" of Ukraine and overthrow
Syria's legitimate president: something which runs counter to the US image of a dignified democracy
not still resorting to 1960s tactics of government overthrow. That, and coupled with Russia and Iran
set to take strategic control of Syria in the coming months, the US simply has no toehold any more
in the critical mid-eastern nation.
And so another sad chapter in the CIA's book of failed government overthrows comes to a close,
leaving the "rebels" that the CIA had supported for years, to fend for themselves.
CIA-backed rebels in Syria, who had begun to put serious pressure on President Bashar Assad's
forces, are now under Russian bombardment with little prospect of rescue by their American
patrons, U.S. officials say.
Over the past week, Russia has directed parts of its air campaign against U.S.-funded groups
and other moderate opposition in a concerted effort to weaken them, the officials say.
The Obama administration has few options to defend those it had secretly armed and trained.
The Russians "know their targets, and they have a sophisticated capacity to understand the
battlefield situation," said Rep. Mike Pompeo, R-Kan., who serves on the House Intelligence Committee
and was careful not to confirm a classified program. "They are bombing in locations that are not
connected to the Islamic State" group.
... ... ..
Incidentally, this is just the beginning. Now that the U.S. has begun its pivot out
of the middle-east, handing it over to Putin as Russia's latest sphere of influence
on a silver platter, there will be staggering consequences for middle-east geopolitics. In out preview
of things to come last week, we concluded by laying these out; we will do the same again:
The US, in conjunction with Saudi Arabia and Qatar, attempted to train and support Sunni extremists
to overthrow the Assad regime. Some of those Sunni extremists ended up going crazy and declaring
a Medeival caliphate putting the Pentagon and Langley in the hilarious position of being forced
to classify al-Qaeda as "moderate." The situation spun out of control leading to hundreds
of thousands of civilian deaths and when Washington finally decided to try and find real "moderates"
to help contain the Frankenstein monster the CIA had created in ISIS (there were of course numerous
other CIA efforts to arm and train anti-Assad fighters, see below for the fate of the most "successful"
of those groups), the effort ended up being a complete embarrassment that culminated with the
admission that only "four or five" remained and just days after that admission, those "four or
five" were car jacked by al-Qaeda in what was perhaps the most under-reported piece of foreign
policy comedy in history.
Meanwhile, Iran sensed an epic opportunity to capitalize on Washington's incompetence. Tehran
then sent its most powerful general to Russia where a pitch was made to upend the Mid-East balance
of power. The Kremlin loved the idea because after all, Moscow is stinging from Western economic
sanctions and Vladimir Putin is keen on showing the West that, in the wake of the controversy
surrounding the annexation of Crimea and the conflict in eastern Ukraine, Russia isn't set to
back down. Thanks to the fact that the US chose extremists as its weapon of choice in Syria,
Russia gets to frame its involvement as a "war on terror" and thanks to Russia's involvement,
Iran gets to safely broadcast its military support for Assad just weeks after the nuclear deal
was struck. Now, Russian airstrikes have debilitated the only group of CIA-backed fighters that
had actually proven to be somewhat effective and Iran and Hezbollah are preparing a massive ground
invasion under cover of Russian air support. Worse still, the entire on-the-ground effort is being
coordinated by the Iranian general who is public enemy number one in Western intelligence circles
and he's effectively operating at the behest of Putin, the man that Western media paints as the
most dangerous person on the planet.
As incompetent as the US has proven to be throughout the entire debacle, it's still
difficult to imagine that Washington, Riyadh, London, Doha, and Jerusalem are going to take this
laying down and on that note, we close with our assessment from Thursday: "If Russia
ends up bolstering Iran's position in Syria (by expanding Hezbollah's influence and capabilities)
and if the Russian air force effectively takes control of Iraq thus allowing Iran to exert a greater
influence over the government in Baghdad, the fragile balance of power that has existed in the
region will be turned on its head and in the event this plays out, one should not expect
Washington, Riyadh, Jerusalem, and London to simply go gentle into that good night."
Which is not to say that the latest US failure to overthrow a mid-east government was a total
failure. As Joshua Landis, a Syria expert at the University of Oklahoma says "probably 60 to
80 percent of the arms that America shoveled in have gone to al-Qaida and its affiliates."
Which is at least great news for the military-industrial complex. It means more "terrorist
attacks" on U.S. "friends and allies", and perhaps even on U.S. soil - all courtesy of the US government
supplying the weapons - are imminent.
BlueViolet
It's not a fiasco. It's a success. AlQaeda/ISIS created by Israel and financed by US.
Stackers
Never forget the first chapter of this story happened in 2011 Benghazi Libya when the Turkey
brokered arms deal went bad, Obama admin abandoned them and one CIA op posing as an ambasador
and his security detail were killed.
This thing has been a shit show from day one and involves scandal after scandal
The Indelicate ...
Video: Israeli forces open fire on Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza killing seven
There is no such thing as 10,000 CIA 'rebels' - that's only their on-line name.
There is a 10,000-man CIA assassination team or better still - mafia hit squad - in Syria.
They're not rebels, they're not terrorists, they're not even mercs. They are paid criminal assassins,
nothing more. My country hired them, so my country is guilty of racketeering and assassination.
There are no degrees of separation here - the U.S. is directly responsible. Since the acts were
perpetrated by people who are also violating the Constitution of the U.S., they are criminals
and traitors.
We should do something about them... right after this season of Keeping Up With The Kardashians.
WTFRLY
White House still ignores murder of American reporter Serena Shim who filmed western aid to
ISIS February 27, 2015
1 year almost since her death. Today would have been her 30th birthday.
SWRichmond
You and I (and perhaps others) wonder how 10,000 "moderate rebels" were vetted before being
trained and equipped. I am guessing an interview with some commander-wannabee, who said "yes I
am a moderate" and then CIA said "awesome, here's $500,000,000.00 and a boatload of sophisticated
weapons. Go hire and train some more moderates." Or maybe CIA just asked McCain and took his word
for it.
...but few believe the U.S. can protect its secret rebel allies
Some secret...
This kind of shit is what you get when the deep state breathes its own fumes.
Lore
Exactly. American hands are drenched in blood. It's not enough just to withdraw from Syria
and leave a bunch of mercs and "assets" to burn, and it's not enough to go after the individuals
behind specific atrocities like 911, the bombing of the hospital, or the weddings, or Abu Ghraib,
or Benghazi, or, or... Nothing will be fixed or resolved until those responsible for drafting,
approving and implementing the pathological policy behind all the loss of life over the past decade
are prosecuted and brought to justice. Unless and until that happens, America has abandoned its
moral foundation and is doomed as a nation. It's just a practical observation.
geno-econ
Neocons went a step too far with their marauder agenda in Ukraine and Syria. Now they
have been silenced by Putin with a show of force exposing US weakness. Both Bush and Obama
showed weakness in not controllling Neocon influence in Wash. and is now reflectrd in political
party turmoil. EU should rejoice because US policy in Syria caused refugee problem which
will subside with end of civil war in Syria. Kiev government now also realizes US will not support
real confrontation with Russia and Russia will not give up Crimea. Neocon experiment in achieving
growth through regime change has been a total failure and huge drain on US economy.
greenskeeper carl
I agree 100%. What I'm dreading is listening to all the republitards in the next debate trying
to one up each other on the war mongering. The problem with 'let Russia have it' is that it will
be talked about by the right as though that's a bad thing. It will be spun as an Obama fuck uo(which
it is) not because of the simple fact that it was never any of our business in the first place.
To them, EVERYTHING is our business, and they will be spending the next few weeks talking tough
about how they will stand up to Putin.
RockyRacoon
You got it right, Carl. If they want to see Russia get its butt kicked, give them Syria, and
Afghanistan, and Iraq and all the other crappy countries that the U. S. has managed to destabilize.
Wish the Russians luck in putting that all back together. Better yet, encourage them to annex
the whole shootin' match into the Russian alliance!
Hey, wait.... could this have been the long term plan all along? Hmmm.... Maybe them thar neocons
are smarter than they look. Nah, never mind.
sp0rkovite
The article implies the CIA "lost" Syria. When did it ever "win" it? Total political propaganda.
datura
There are some risks, yes, dead Iranian general, perhaps soon some dead Russian soldiers.
But unlike the USA, Iran is fighting for its existence here. They know if Syria falls, they could
be next. As for Russia, it is very similar. As one expert said: "When the USA looks at Syria,
they see pipelines, profit from weapons, money and power." But the first thing Putin sees, when
looking at Syria, is Chechnya. Syria is very close to Russia, but very far from the USA. And that
is a huge difference.
For example, yesterday, some ISIS fighters were arrested in Chechnya. Luckily, FSB discovered
them before they could do some harm. Not even talking about those ISIS fighters, who came to Ukraine,
to fight against the pro-Russian rebels!!! You can see, how close and how important is this to
Russia and why Russia cannot give up here and has to go to all the extremes. Including the parked
nuclear submarine near Syria.
I could say to the US lunatics: you shouldn't have kept poking the bear. You shouldn't
have supported terrorists in Chechnya. You should have left Ukraine to Russia. As Putin said very
clearly in Valdai: "Russia does not intend to take an active role in thwarting those who are still
attempting to construct their New World Order-until their efforts start to impinge on Russia's
key interests. Russia would prefer to stand by and watch them give themselves as many lumps as
their poor heads can take. But those who manage to drag Russia into this process, through disregard
for her interests, will be taught the true meaning of pain."
House of Saud better be careful, because once Syria is taken care of, they will pay dearly
for arming ISIS. If Russia wins in the ME Qatar and SA are up for regime change and the US cannot
stop it.
Neil Patrick Harris
no no no. It's a about Israel seizing legal authority to drill for oil and nat gas in the Golan
Heights/Southern Syria. The plan was to arm ISIS, help ISIS defeat Assad, let ISIS be terrible
ISIS who will then threaten Israel, giving the Israelis a perfect excuse to invade Syria, defeat
ISIS and look like a hero, then build a pipeline through Turkey, right in to Europe.
But thankfully Putin cockblocked those racist Zionists, and he is going to get all the oil
and gas for himself. Poor ol' Bibi gets nothing. Checkmate.
Freddie
http://www.moonofalabama.org/
Moon of Alabama web site is saying the See Eye Aye and Pentagram are not giving up. If
anything, they plan on ramping it up. How many more civilians do they want to kill? Sickening.
Given our military spending I think we actually could win an all-out war. We have enough nukes
to glass the planet a dozen times after all.
However, bullies don't want to fight with someone who could actually fight back, and who could
change the wars from this abstract thing that "creates jobs" and only hurts a few Americans (10k
Americans = 0.003% of the population), to something that people actually might not want.
viahj
if this is framed as an Obama failure in foreign policy (it will) in the upcoming US political
Presidential selection, the candidates will all be falling over themselves to come to the aide
of our "ME Allies" to restore order. there will be a push to re-escalate US involvement in the
ME especially with the pressure of Israel over their owned US politicians. a US retreat in the
short term while fortunate for the American people, will not stand. the warmongers will be posturing
themselves as to which will be the loudest in calling for re-engagement.
In 2014, Gazprom delivered
27.3 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas to Turkey via its Blue Stream and Trans-Balkan pipelines.
Gas exports from Russia are up some 34 percent since
2010, and Turkey
– now Russia's second largest market after Germany – is only getting hungrier. By 2030, gas demand
in Turkey is
expected to expand 30 percent, reaching 70 bcm per year.
... ... ...
With European demand projected to
grow by just over 1 bcm per year in the same period, Russia's South Stream pipeline proposal
was as misguided as it was non-compliant with the EU's Third Energy Package. Routed through Turkey
however, Russia's newest pipeline, TurkStream, promised to add greater utility. Turkey gets its gas
and partly fulfills its transit aspirations; Russia bypasses Ukraine while opening windows to Europe
and the Middle East; and Europe, if it wants it, will have gas
on demand.
It sounds good – okay, at least – but as so often happens in Russia, the tale has taken a turn
for the worse. TurkStream has stumbled out of the gates and larger happenings in Syria look to significantly
damage Russia-Turkey relations.
Originally intended as a four-pipe 63-bcm project, TurkStream will now
top out at 32 bcm,
if it gets off the ground at all. As it stands, the parties have
agreed to draft the text of
an intergovernmental agreement, with a targeted signing date of early next year, following Turkey's
general election. And that's it.
The US Geological Survey (USGS) reported that nine quakes ranging in magnitude from 2.5 to 3.7
were recorded between 5.07pm on Saturday and 5.27am on Sunday. No injuries or damage were
reported. Geologists say damage is not likely in quakes below magnitude 4.0.
The latest seismic activity came after a 4.5 magnitude temblor on Saturday afternoon near Cushing
and a 4.4 magnitude quake on Saturday morning south-west of Medford.
The Oklahoma Geological Survey has said it is likely that many recent earthquakes in the
state have been triggered by the injection of wastewater from oil and natural gas drilling
operations.
Cushing is home to the world's most important crude oil storage hub, which is used to settle
futures contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange.
Cushing emergency management director Bob Noltensmeyer said on Sunday that no significant damage
was found at the oil facility, only "shattered nerves".
Orwell2015 11 Oct 2015 19:50
Oh the irony of it all, which sadly will be lost on most.
ARTEMIVSK, Ukraine - How do you prove you didn't blow up a plane? In Russia, you blow up
a plane.
A Russian missile manufacturer said Friday that it had exploded a missile beneath a
decommissioned Boeing airliner similar to that of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, shot out of the
sky over eastern Ukraine last year, proving the passenger jet was not downed by one of its
missiles.
"The company will present the results of a real-time simulation of a Buk missile hitting a
passenger jet which we hope will help us understand what exactly caused the July 17, 2014 crash
of the Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 in Ukraine's Donetsk region," Almaz-Antey said in a
statement.
The company did not say when the experiment took place or how it was conducted, and it did not
immediately reply to Mashable's request for comment. Its report will be released on Tuesday, Oct.
13, the same day a joint international investigation led by the Dutch Safety Board will release
its full report into the causes of the downing.
At a press conference in Moscow in June, Almaz-Antey said it was prepared to carry out
such an experiment to prove MH17 was downed by an older version of their missile that isn't in
service with the Russian military, but is in Ukraine's arsenal.
Company officials at the time did not say whether the aircraft would be in flight during the
experiment.
MH17 was downed over the village of Hrabovo, eastern Ukraine while en route from Amsterdam to
Kuala Lumpa on July 17, 2014. All 298 passengers and crew on board the jetliner were killed and
their remains scattered over the battlefields in war-torn Donetsk region.
Western governments and Kiev have accused Russian-backed separatists of shooting down the
passenger jet, mistaking it for a Ukrainian military aircraft, with a Buk SA-11 missile provided
by Moscow. Their accusations are supported by preliminary evidence gathered by open source
sleuths Bellingcat, as well as investigators and Mashable's own investigation.
On Wednesday, Vasyl Vovk, a senior officer of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) who has been
involved in the investigation into the downing, told Dutch news site NOS that the fragments found
in the aircraft wreckage and in victims' bodies matched pieces from two Buk missiles that
investigators examined for comparison.
The Kremlin and separatist leaders have blamed Kiev for the disaster, insisting it was downed
either by a Ukrainian Buk missile or a government jet fighter.
While the Dutch report due next week will shine a light on what caused the plane to crash and
burn, it will not lay blame.
A separate criminal investigation headed by Dutch detectives and involving investigators from
Australia, Belgium, Malaysia and Ukraine is still pending.
Attempts by the United Nations Security Council to create a tribunal to prosecute those
responsible for the crime was vetoed by Russia, a permanent member of the council, in July.
Moscow has called the move "premature" and decried the Dutch-led investigation as biased.
