1 The Korean War ends (1953
2 President Kennedy invades South Vietnam (1962)
3 The US overthrows Allende in Chile (1973)
4 The West installs Iranian dictator the Shah (1953)
5 The US-led Iraq invasion (2003)
Many honorable mentions including:
– NATO bombing of Serbia
– Libya
– Afghanistan
– Syria (support of ISIS and its predecessors and spinoffs)
The US body count is simply staggering – many millions killed, millions more wounded
or poisoned (Vietnam – agent orange and other chemical agents) and tens of millions of
lives forever damaged.
USA! USA! USA! (its elites that rule us of course!)
1 The Korean War ends (1953
2 President Kennedy invades South Vietnam (1962)
3 The US overthrows Allende in Chile (1973)
4 The West installs Iranian dictator the Shah (1953)
5 The US-led Iraq invasion (2003)
Many honorable mentions including:
– NATO bombing of Serbia
– Libya
– Afghanistan
– Syria (support of ISIS and its predecessors and spinoffs)
The US body count is simply staggering – many millions killed, millions more wounded
or poisoned (Vietnam – agent orange and other chemical agents) and tens of millions of
lives forever damaged.
USA! USA! USA! (its elites that rule us of course!)
"... Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies professor from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team created an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014. ..."
"... " Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions. ..."
Tyler Durden
Aug 26, 2017 9:15 PM 0
SHARES
US has had a military presence across the world
, from almost day one of its independence.
For those who have ever wanted a clearer picture of the true reach of the United States
military - both historically and currently - but shied away due to the sheer volume of research
required to find an answer,
The Anti Media points out
that
a crew at the
Independent
just made things a whole lot simpler.
Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies
professor
from Evergreen State College in
Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team
created
an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from
Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014.
To avoid confusion, indy100 laid out its prerequisites for what constitutes an invasion:
" Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US
intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military
support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions.
But indy100 didn't stop there.
To put all that history into context, using
data
from the Department
of Defense (DOD), the team also put together a map to display all the countries in which nearly
200,000 active members of the U.S. military are now stationed.
"... Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies professor from Evergreen State College in Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team created an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014. ..."
"... " Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions. ..."
Tyler Durden
Aug 26, 2017 9:15 PM 0
SHARES
US has had a military presence across the world
, from almost day one of its independence.
For those who have ever wanted a clearer picture of the true reach of the United States
military - both historically and currently - but shied away due to the sheer volume of research
required to find an answer,
The Anti Media points out
that
a crew at the
Independent
just made things a whole lot simpler.
Using data compiled by a Geography and Native Studies
professor
from Evergreen State College in
Olympia, Washington, the indy100 team
created
an interactive map of U.S. military incursions outside its own borders from
Argentina in 1890 to Syria in 2014.
To avoid confusion, indy100 laid out its prerequisites for what constitutes an invasion:
" Deployment of the military to evacuate American citizens, covert military actions by US
intelligence, providing military support to an internal opposition group, providing military
support in one side of a conflict, use of the army in drug enforcement actions.
But indy100 didn't stop there.
To put all that history into context, using
data
from the Department
of Defense (DOD), the team also put together a map to display all the countries in which nearly
200,000 active members of the U.S. military are now stationed.
"... As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits? ..."
As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the
end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits?
You start by assuming that the absence of war is the ultimate good, but none can say what a world without war would be like,
or how long it would last.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/wars-john-gray-conflict-peace
Has the world seen moral progress? The answer should not depend on whether one has a sunny or a morose temperament. Everyone
agrees that life is better than death, health better than sickness, prosperity better than privation, freedom better than tyranny,
peace better than war. All of these can be measured, and the results plotted over time. If they go up, that's progress.
For John Gray, this is a big problem. As a part of his campaign against reason, science and Enlightenment humanism, he insists
that the strivings of humanity over the centuries have left us no better off. This dyspepsia was hard enough to sustain when
Gray first expressed it in the teeth of obvious counterexamples such as the abolition of human sacrifice, chattel slavery and
public torture-executions. But as scholars have increasingly measured human flourishing, they have found that Gray is not just
wrong but howlingly, flat-earth, couldn't-be-more-wrong wrong. The numbers show that after millennia of near-universal poverty
and despotism, a steadily growing proportion of humankind is surviving infancy and childbirth, going to school, voting in democracies,
living free of disease, enjoying the necessities of modern life and surviving to old age.
And more people are living in peace. In the 1980s several military scholars noticed to their astonishment that the most
destructive form of armed conflict – wars among great powers and developed states – had effectively ceased to exist. At the
time this "long peace" could have been dismissed as a random lull, but it has held firm for an additional three decades.
In my opinion Gray, though wrong that violence is not decreasing, is onto something about the future being bleak because of
the rise of meliorist assumptions, because perpetual peace will be humanity's tomb.
While many suggest a danger for our world along the lines of
Brian Cox's explanation for the Fermi Paradox (ie intelligent life forms cross grainedly bring on self-annihilation through
unlimited war) I take a different view.
Given that Pinker appears substantially correct that serious war (ie wars among great powers and developed states) have effectively
ceased to exist, the trend is for peace and cooperation. Martin Nowak in his book The Supercoperators shows cooperation, not fighting,
to be the defining human trait (and indeed the most cooperative groups won their wars in history, whereby nation states
such the US are the result of not just individuals but familial tribal regional , and virtually continental groupings coming together
for mutual advantage and defence .
The future is going to be global integration pursuit of economic objectives, and I think this exponential moral progress bill
begat technological advances beyond imagining.. An escape from the war trap is almost complete and the Singularity becomes. The
most likely culprit in the paradox is a technological black hole event horizon created by unlimited peace and progress.
Cross-grained though it may be to say that the good war hallows every cause, I think it not so bad in comparison with the alternative.
"... As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits? ..."
As for Washington and the proverbially bombastic, failed futurists across the Beltway, do they even know what is the
end game of "investing" in two never-ending wars with no visible benefits?
You start by assuming that the absence of war is the ultimate good, but none can say what a world without war would be like,
or how long it would last.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/mar/20/wars-john-gray-conflict-peace
Has the world seen moral progress? The answer should not depend on whether one has a sunny or a morose temperament. Everyone
agrees that life is better than death, health better than sickness, prosperity better than privation, freedom better than tyranny,
peace better than war. All of these can be measured, and the results plotted over time. If they go up, that's progress.
For John Gray, this is a big problem. As a part of his campaign against reason, science and Enlightenment humanism, he insists
that the strivings of humanity over the centuries have left us no better off. This dyspepsia was hard enough to sustain when
Gray first expressed it in the teeth of obvious counterexamples such as the abolition of human sacrifice, chattel slavery and
public torture-executions. But as scholars have increasingly measured human flourishing, they have found that Gray is not just
wrong but howlingly, flat-earth, couldn't-be-more-wrong wrong. The numbers show that after millennia of near-universal poverty
and despotism, a steadily growing proportion of humankind is surviving infancy and childbirth, going to school, voting in democracies,
living free of disease, enjoying the necessities of modern life and surviving to old age.
And more people are living in peace. In the 1980s several military scholars noticed to their astonishment that the most
destructive form of armed conflict – wars among great powers and developed states – had effectively ceased to exist. At the
time this "long peace" could have been dismissed as a random lull, but it has held firm for an additional three decades.
In my opinion Gray, though wrong that violence is not decreasing, is onto something about the future being bleak because of
the rise of meliorist assumptions, because perpetual peace will be humanity's tomb.
While many suggest a danger for our world along the lines of
Brian Cox's explanation for the Fermi Paradox (ie intelligent life forms cross grainedly bring on self-annihilation through
unlimited war) I take a different view.
Given that Pinker appears substantially correct that serious war (ie wars among great powers and developed states) have effectively
ceased to exist, the trend is for peace and cooperation. Martin Nowak in his book The Supercoperators shows cooperation, not fighting,
to be the defining human trait (and indeed the most cooperative groups won their wars in history, whereby nation states
such the US are the result of not just individuals but familial tribal regional , and virtually continental groupings coming together
for mutual advantage and defence .
The future is going to be global integration pursuit of economic objectives, and I think this exponential moral progress bill
begat technological advances beyond imagining.. An escape from the war trap is almost complete and the Singularity becomes. The
most likely culprit in the paradox is a technological black hole event horizon created by unlimited peace and progress.
Cross-grained though it may be to say that the good war hallows every cause, I think it not so bad in comparison with the alternative.
Well put. These people are like the "nobles" of medieval times. They care not a whit about the "peasants" they trample. They
are wealth bigots, compounded by some ethnic bigotry or other, in this case Jewish supremacism. America has an oligarchy problem.
At the center of that oligarchy is a Jewish mafia controlling the banks, and thereby the big corporations, and thereby the media
and the government. This oligarchy sees America as a big, dumb military machine that it can manipulate to generate war profits.
Well put. These people are like the "nobles" of medieval times. They care not a whit about the "peasants" they trample. They
are wealth bigots, compounded by some ethnic bigotry or other, in this case Jewish supremacism. America has an oligarchy problem.
At the center of that oligarchy is a Jewish mafia controlling the banks, and thereby the big corporations, and thereby the media
and the government. This oligarchy sees America as a big, dumb military machine that it can manipulate to generate war profits.
"... There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris. ..."
The Russians were there in Yugoslavia but they were not following NATO's script. There was an incident where Russian forces
took control of a key airport to the total surprise of NATO. The US overall commander ordered the UK to go in and kick the Russians
out. The UK ground commander wisely said he was not prepared to start WW III over Russian control of an airfield.
There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion
of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was
removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess
this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris.
"... There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris. ..."
The Russians were there in Yugoslavia but they were not following NATO's script. There was an incident where Russian forces
took control of a key airport to the total surprise of NATO. The US overall commander ordered the UK to go in and kick the Russians
out. The UK ground commander wisely said he was not prepared to start WW III over Russian control of an airfield.
There has been a gradual decline in the rationality of UK forces thinking. They insisted on UN legal cover cover the invasion
of Iraq but were totally on board with pre-emptive action in Libya, happily training effectively ISIS forces before Gaddafi was
removed. They are now training Ukrainian Neo-Nazis and training ISIS/whatever in Syria, effectively invading the country. I guess
this may reflect the increasing direct Zionist control of Perfidious Albion with attendant levels of hubris.
"... A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating, if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature, is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it; of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it. ..."
"... My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us. ..."
"... Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again. ..."
Consider this article a work of speculation; a jumble of ideas thrown at a blank canvas.
A lot of art depicts war scenes, and why not? War is incredibly exciting, dynamic, destructive, and otherwise captivating,
if often in a horrific way. But I want to consider war and art in a different manner, in an impressionistic one. War, by its nature,
is often spectacle; it is also often chaotic; complex; beyond comprehension. Perhaps art theory, and art styles, have something to
teach us about war. Ways of representing it and capturing its meaning as well as its horrors. But also ways of misrepresenting it;
of fracturing its meaning. Of manipulating it.
For example, America's overseas wars today are both abstractions and distractions. They're also somewhat surreal to most Americans,
living as we do in comparative safety and material luxury (when compared to most other peoples of the world). Abstraction and surrealism:
two art styles that may say something vital about America's wars.
If some aspects of America's wars are surreal and others abstract, if reports of those wars are often impressionistic and often
blurred beyond recognition, this points to, I think, the highly stylized representations of war that are submitted for our consideration.
What we don't get very often is realism. Recall how the Bush/Cheney administration forbade photos of flag-draped coffins returning
from Iraq and Afghanistan. Think of all the war reporting you've seen on U.S. TV and Cable networks, and ask how many times you saw
severed American limbs and dead bodies on a battlefield. (On occasion, dead bodies of the enemy are shown, usually briefly and abstractly,
with no human backstory.)
Of course, there's no "real" way to showcase the brutal reality of war, short of bringing a person to the front and having them
face fire in combat -- a level of "participatory" art that sane people would likely seek to avoid. What we get, as spectators (which
is what we're told to remain in America), is an impression of combat. Here and there, a surreal report. An abstract news clip. Blown
up buildings become exercises in neo-Cubism; melted buildings and weapons become Daliesque displays. Severed limbs (of the enemy)
are exercises in the grotesque. For the vast majority of Americans, what's lacking is raw immediacy and gut-wrenching reality.
Again, we are spectators, not participants. And our responses are often as stylized and limited as the representations are. As
Rebecca Gordon put it from a different angle at
TomDispatch.com , when it comes to America's wars, are we participating in reality or merely watching reality TV? And why are
so many so prone to confuse or conflate the two?
Art, of course, isn't the only lens through which we can see and interpret America's wars. Advertising, especially hyperbole,
is also quite revealing. Thus the US military has been sold, whether by George W. Bush or Barack Obama, as "the world's finest military
in history" or WFMH, an acronym I just made up, and which should perhaps come with a copyright or trademark symbol after it. It's
classic advertising hyperbole. It's salesmanship in place of reality.
So, when other peoples beat our WFMH, we should do what Americans do best: sue them for copyright infringement. Our legions of
lawyers will most certainly beat their cadres of counsels. After all, under Bush/Cheney, our lawyers tortured logic and the law to
support torture itself. Talk about surrealism!
My point (and I think I have one) is that America's wars are in some sense elaborate productions and representations, at least
in the ways in which the government constructs and sells them to the American people. To understand these representations -- the
ways in which they are both more than real war and less than it -- art theory, as well as advertising, may have a lot to teach us.
As I said, this is me throwing ideas at the canvas of my computer screen. Do they make any sense to you? Feel free to pick up
your own brush and compose away in the comments section.
P.S. Danger, Will Robinson. I've never taken an art theory class or studied advertising closely.
William J. Astore is a retired lieutenant colonel (USAF). He taught history for fifteen years at military and civilian schools
and blogs at Bracing Views . He can be reached at
[email protected] . Reprinted from Bracing
Views with the author's permission.
Afghanistan as the unfinished masterpiece....most people forget that the government is yet to complete it except when a
Marine dies, they think about it for a day and then forget all over again.
Why would you object to government creating more demand for labor? Over time, wages will rise and higher wages will fund more
demand for labor produced goods.
"... Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor and messianic in its language. ..."
"... At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem," yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways. ..."
"... Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory is built. ..."
"... Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet. ..."
"... I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department. ..."
"... I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization, which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely. Neither is guaranteed. ..."
"... "Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened. ..."
"... Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire, ..."
"... We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem, or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or .... ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'. ..."
"... "If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but a Global Empire only posing as your former country." ..."
Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are
part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from
the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but
can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and
he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and
integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy
of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor
and messianic in its language.
The foundation upon which Barnett builds his binary view of the world is heavily dependant upon the continued advancement of
globalization - almost exclusively so. However, advancing globalization is not pre-ordained. Barnett himself makes the case that
globalization is a fragile undertaking similar to an interconnected chain in which any broken link destroys the whole. Globalization
could indeed be like the biblical statue whose feet are made of clay. Globalization, and therefore the integration of the Gap,
may even stop or recede - just as the globalization of the early 20th century ended abruptly with the onset of WW I and a global
depression. Moreover, Barnett's contention that the United States has an exceptional duty and moral responsibility for "remaking
the world in America's image" might be seen by many as misguided and perhaps even dangerous.
The divide between the `Functioning Core' and the `Non-Integrating Gap' differs from the gulf between rich and poor in a subtle
yet direct way. State governments make a conscious decision to become connected vs. disconnected to advancing globalization. States
and their leaders can provide the infrastructure and the opening of large global markets to their citizens in ways that individuals
cannot. An example can serve to illustrate the point: You can be rich and disconnected in Nigeria or poor and disconnected in
North Korea. In each case the country you live in has decided to be disconnected. Citizens in this case have a limited likelihood
of staying rich and unlimited prospects of staying poor. But by becoming part of the functioning Core, the enlightened state allows
all citizens a running start at becoming part of a worldwide economic system and thus provide prospects for a better future because
global jobs and markets are opened up to them. A connected economy such as India's, for example, enables citizens who once had
no prospects for a better life to find well-paying jobs, such as computer-related employment. Prospects for a better Indian life
are directly the result of the Indian government's conscious decision to become connected to the world economy, a.k.a. embracing
globalization.
After placing his theory of the Core/Gap and preemptive war strategy firmly into the church of globalization, Barnett next
places his theory squarely upon the alter of rule sets. Few would argue that the world is an anarchic place and Barnett tells
us that rule sets are needed to define `good' and `evil' behavior of actors in this chaotic international system. An example of
such a rule set is the desire of the Core to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorist organizations. Other examples are the promulgation
of human rights and the need to stop genocide. Barnett also uses rule sets to define `system' rules that govern and shape the
actions, and even the psychology, of international actors. An example that Barnett gives of a system-wide rule set is the creation
of the `rule' defined by the United States during the Cold War called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Barnett claims that this
rule set effectively ended the possibility of war for all time amongst nuclear-capable great powers. Barnett states that the U.S.
now should export a brand new rule set called `preemptive war,' which aims to fight actors in the lawless Gap in order to end
international terrorism for all time. Barnett makes it clear that the Core's enemy is neither a religion (Islam) nor a place (Middle
East), but a condition (disconnectedness).
Next, Barnett points out that system-wide competition has moved into the economic arena and that military conflict, when it
occurs, has moved away from the system-wide (Cold War), to inter-state war, ending up today with primarily state conflict vs.
individuals (Core vs. bin Laden, Core vs. Kim, etc.). In other words, "we are moving progressively away from warfare against states
or even blocs of states and toward a new era of warfare against individuals." Rephrased, we've moved from confrontations with
evil empires, to evil states, to evil leaders. An example of this phenomenon is the fact that China dropped off the radar of many
government hawks after 9/11 only to be replaced by terrorist groups and other dangerous NGOs "with global reach."
Barnett also points out that the idea of `connectivity' is central to the success of globalization. Without it, everything
else fails. Connectivity is the glue that holds states together and helps prevent war between states. For example, the US is not
likely to start a war with `connected' France, but America could more likely instigate a war with `disconnected' North Korea,
Syria or Iran.
Barnett then examines the dangers associated with his definition of `disconnectedness.' He cleverly describes globalization
as a condition defined by mutually assured dependence (MAD) and advises us that `Big Men', royal families, raw materials, theocracies
and just bad luck can conspire to impede connectedness in the world. This is one of few places in his book that Barnett briefly
discusses impediments to globalization - however, this short list looks at existing roadblocks to connectedness but not to future,
system-wide dangers to globalization.
At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore
never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited
some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by
claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard
wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem,"
yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion
that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways.
Barnett then takes us on a pilgrimage to the Ten Commandments of globalization. Tellingly, this list is set up to be more like
links in a chain than commandments. Each item in the list is connected to the next - meaning that each step is dependent upon
its predecessor. If any of the links are broken or incomplete, the whole is destroyed. For example, Barnett warns us that if there
is no security in the Gap, there can be no rules in the Gap. Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand
strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory
is built.
What else could kill globalization? Barnett himself tells us: "Labor, energy, money and security all need to flow as freely
as possible from those places in the world where they are plentiful to those regions where they are scarce." Here he is implying
that an interruption of any or all of these basic necessities can doom globalization. Barnett states clearly: "...(these are)
the four massive flows I believe are essential to protect if Globalization III is going to advance." Simply put, any combination
of American isolationism or closing of borders to immigration, a global energy crisis, a global financial crisis or rampant global
insecurity could adversely affect "connectedness," a.k.a. globalization. These plausible future events, unnerving as they are,
leave the inexorable advancement of globalization in doubt and we haven't yet explored other problems with Barnett's reliance
on globalization to make the world peaceful, free and safe for democracy.
Barnett goes on to tell us that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an "overt attempt to create a "System Perturbation" centered in
the Persian Gulf to trigger a Big Bang." His definition of a Big Bang in the Middle East is the democratization of the many totalitarian
states in the region. He also claims that the Big Bang has targeted Iran's "sullen majority."
Barnett claims that our problem with shrinking the Gap is not our "motive or our means, but our inability to describe the enemies
worth killing, the battles worth winning, and the future worth creating." Managing the global campaign to democratize the world
is no easy task. Barnett admits that in a worst-case scenario we may be stuck in the "mother of all intifadas" in Iraq. Critics
claim this is something that we should have planned for - that the insurgency should not have been a surprise, and that it should
have been part of the "peacemaking" planning. Barnett blithely states that things will get better "...when America internationalizes
the occupation." Barnett should not engage in wishful thinking here, as he also does when he predicted that Iraqis would be put
in charge of their own country 18 months after the fall of Baghdad. It would be more accurate if he claimed this would happen
18 months after the cessation of hostilities. Some critics claim that Iraq is an example that we are an "empire in a hurry" (Michael
Ignatieff), which then results in: 1) allocating insufficient resources to non-military aspects of the project and 2) attempting
economic and political transformation in an unrealistically short time frame.
The final basic premise of Barnett's theory of the Core and the Gap is the concept of what he calls the "global transaction
strategy." Barnett explains it best: "America's essential transaction with the outside world is one of our exporting security
in return for the world's financing a lifestyle we could far more readily afford without all that defense spending." Barnett claims
that America pays the most for global stability because we enjoy it the most. But what about the other 80 countries in the Core?
Why is America, like Atlas, bearing the weight of the world's security and stabilization on its shoulders?
Barnett claims that historical analogies are useless today and point us in the wrong direction. I disagree. James Madison cautioned
us not to go abroad to seek monsters to destroy. We can learn from his simple and profound statement that there are simply too
many state (and individual) monsters in today's world for the U.S. to destroy unilaterally or preemptively. We must also avoid
overstretching our resources and power. Thucydides reminds us that the great democracy of Athens was brought to its knees by the
ill-advised Sicilian expedition - which resulted in the destruction of everything the Athenians held dear. Do not ignore history
as Barnett councils; heed it.
Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet.
Therefore, America needs to stay engaged in the affairs of the world, but Barnett has not offered conclusive evidence that the
U.S. needs to become the world's single Leviathan that must extinguish all global hot wars. Barnett also has not proved that America
needs to be, as he writes, "the one willing to rush in when everyone else is running away." People like Barnett in academia and
leaders in government may proclaim and ordain the U.S. to be a global Leviathan, but it is a conscious choice that should be thoroughly
debated by the American people. After all, it is upon the backs of the American people that such a global Leviathan must ride.
Where is the debate? The American people, upon reflection, may decide upon other courses of action.
I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend
it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the
military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department.
It seems to be well researched - having 35 pages of notes. Many of Barnett's citations come from the Washington Post and the
New York Times, which some may see as a liberal bias, but I see the sources as simply newspapers of record.
I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization,
which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely.
Neither is guaranteed.
I don't think poorly of Thomas Barnett himself. He's very bright and, I think, good hearted, BUT his well thought-out, well
argued pride and joy (and positive intellectual pursuit) is being badly distorted ---- which happens to all 'tools' that Empire
gets its hands on.
For those who like predictions, I would predict that Barnett will wind up going through an epiphany much like Francis Fukuyama
(but a decade later) and for much the same reason, that his life's work gets misused and abused so greatly that he works to reverse
and correct its misuse. Fukuyama, also brilliant, wrote "The End of History" in 1992 (which was misused by the neocons to engender
war), and now he's working just as hard to reverse a misuse that he may feel some guilt of his work supporting, and is writing
"The Future of History" as a force for good --- and I suspect (and hope) that Barnett will, in even less time, be counter-thinking
and developing the strategy and book to reverse the misuse of his 2004 book before the Global Empire pulls down the curtain.
"Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate
name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened.
Best luck and love to the fast expanding 'Occupy the Empire' educational and revolutionary movement against this deceitful,
guileful, disguised EMPIRE, which can't so easily be identified as wearing Red Coats, Red Stars, nor funny looking Nazi helmets
---- quite yet!
Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding
wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem,
or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or ....
ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'.
"If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but
a Global Empire only posing as your former country."
"... Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor and messianic in its language. ..."
"... At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem," yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways. ..."
"... Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory is built. ..."
"... Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet. ..."
"... I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department. ..."
"... I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization, which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely. Neither is guaranteed. ..."
"... "Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened. ..."
"... Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire, ..."
"... We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem, or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or .... ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'. ..."
"... "If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but a Global Empire only posing as your former country." ..."
Barnett's main thesis in "The Pentagon's New Map" is that the world is composed of two types of states: those that are
part of an integrated and connected "Core," which embrace globalization; and states of the "Gap," which are disconnected from
the effects of globalization. Barnett proclaims that globalization will move the world into an era of peace and prosperity, but
can only do so with the help of an indispensable United States. He writes that America is the lynchpin to the entire process and
he believes that the United States should be midwife to a new world that will one day consist of peaceful democratic states and
integrated economies. Barnett is proposing no less than a new grand strategy - the historical successor to the Cold War's strategy
of containment. His approach to a future world defined by America's "exportation of security" is almost religious in its fervor
and messianic in its language.
The foundation upon which Barnett builds his binary view of the world is heavily dependant upon the continued advancement of
globalization - almost exclusively so. However, advancing globalization is not pre-ordained. Barnett himself makes the case that
globalization is a fragile undertaking similar to an interconnected chain in which any broken link destroys the whole. Globalization
could indeed be like the biblical statue whose feet are made of clay. Globalization, and therefore the integration of the Gap,
may even stop or recede - just as the globalization of the early 20th century ended abruptly with the onset of WW I and a global
depression. Moreover, Barnett's contention that the United States has an exceptional duty and moral responsibility for "remaking
the world in America's image" might be seen by many as misguided and perhaps even dangerous.
The divide between the `Functioning Core' and the `Non-Integrating Gap' differs from the gulf between rich and poor in a subtle
yet direct way. State governments make a conscious decision to become connected vs. disconnected to advancing globalization. States
and their leaders can provide the infrastructure and the opening of large global markets to their citizens in ways that individuals
cannot. An example can serve to illustrate the point: You can be rich and disconnected in Nigeria or poor and disconnected in
North Korea. In each case the country you live in has decided to be disconnected. Citizens in this case have a limited likelihood
of staying rich and unlimited prospects of staying poor. But by becoming part of the functioning Core, the enlightened state allows
all citizens a running start at becoming part of a worldwide economic system and thus provide prospects for a better future because
global jobs and markets are opened up to them. A connected economy such as India's, for example, enables citizens who once had
no prospects for a better life to find well-paying jobs, such as computer-related employment. Prospects for a better Indian life
are directly the result of the Indian government's conscious decision to become connected to the world economy, a.k.a. embracing
globalization.
After placing his theory of the Core/Gap and preemptive war strategy firmly into the church of globalization, Barnett next
places his theory squarely upon the alter of rule sets. Few would argue that the world is an anarchic place and Barnett tells
us that rule sets are needed to define `good' and `evil' behavior of actors in this chaotic international system. An example of
such a rule set is the desire of the Core to keep WMDs out of the hands of terrorist organizations. Other examples are the promulgation
of human rights and the need to stop genocide. Barnett also uses rule sets to define `system' rules that govern and shape the
actions, and even the psychology, of international actors. An example that Barnett gives of a system-wide rule set is the creation
of the `rule' defined by the United States during the Cold War called Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD). Barnett claims that this
rule set effectively ended the possibility of war for all time amongst nuclear-capable great powers. Barnett states that the U.S.
now should export a brand new rule set called `preemptive war,' which aims to fight actors in the lawless Gap in order to end
international terrorism for all time. Barnett makes it clear that the Core's enemy is neither a religion (Islam) nor a place (Middle
East), but a condition (disconnectedness).
Next, Barnett points out that system-wide competition has moved into the economic arena and that military conflict, when it
occurs, has moved away from the system-wide (Cold War), to inter-state war, ending up today with primarily state conflict vs.
individuals (Core vs. bin Laden, Core vs. Kim, etc.). In other words, "we are moving progressively away from warfare against states
or even blocs of states and toward a new era of warfare against individuals." Rephrased, we've moved from confrontations with
evil empires, to evil states, to evil leaders. An example of this phenomenon is the fact that China dropped off the radar of many
government hawks after 9/11 only to be replaced by terrorist groups and other dangerous NGOs "with global reach."
Barnett also points out that the idea of `connectivity' is central to the success of globalization. Without it, everything
else fails. Connectivity is the glue that holds states together and helps prevent war between states. For example, the US is not
likely to start a war with `connected' France, but America could more likely instigate a war with `disconnected' North Korea,
Syria or Iran.
Barnett then examines the dangers associated with his definition of `disconnectedness.' He cleverly describes globalization
as a condition defined by mutually assured dependence (MAD) and advises us that `Big Men', royal families, raw materials, theocracies
and just bad luck can conspire to impede connectedness in the world. This is one of few places in his book that Barnett briefly
discusses impediments to globalization - however, this short list looks at existing roadblocks to connectedness but not to future,
system-wide dangers to globalization.
At this point in his book, Barnett also makes bold statements that America is never leaving the Gap and that we are therefore
never "bringing our boys home." He believes that there is no exiting the Gap, only shrinking it. These statements have incited
some of Barnett's critics to accuse him of fostering and advocating a state of perpetual war. Barnett rebuts these attacks by
claiming that, "America's task is not perpetual war, nor the extension of empire. It is merely to serve as globalization's bodyguard
wherever and whenever needed throughout the Gap." Barnett claims that the strategy of preemptive war is a "boundable problem,"
yet his earlier claim that we are never leaving the Gap and that our boys are never coming home does not square with his assertion
that there will not be perpetual war. He cannot have it both ways.
Barnett then takes us on a pilgrimage to the Ten Commandments of globalization. Tellingly, this list is set up to be more like
links in a chain than commandments. Each item in the list is connected to the next - meaning that each step is dependent upon
its predecessor. If any of the links are broken or incomplete, the whole is destroyed. For example, Barnett warns us that if there
is no security in the Gap, there can be no rules in the Gap. Barnett therefore undermines his own globalization-based grand
strategy by pointing out in detail at least ten things that can go wrong with globalization - the foundation upon which his theory
is built.
What else could kill globalization? Barnett himself tells us: "Labor, energy, money and security all need to flow as freely
as possible from those places in the world where they are plentiful to those regions where they are scarce." Here he is implying
that an interruption of any or all of these basic necessities can doom globalization. Barnett states clearly: "...(these are)
the four massive flows I believe are essential to protect if Globalization III is going to advance." Simply put, any combination
of American isolationism or closing of borders to immigration, a global energy crisis, a global financial crisis or rampant global
insecurity could adversely affect "connectedness," a.k.a. globalization. These plausible future events, unnerving as they are,
leave the inexorable advancement of globalization in doubt and we haven't yet explored other problems with Barnett's reliance
on globalization to make the world peaceful, free and safe for democracy.
Barnett goes on to tell us that Operation Iraqi Freedom was an "overt attempt to create a "System Perturbation" centered in
the Persian Gulf to trigger a Big Bang." His definition of a Big Bang in the Middle East is the democratization of the many totalitarian
states in the region. He also claims that the Big Bang has targeted Iran's "sullen majority."
Barnett claims that our problem with shrinking the Gap is not our "motive or our means, but our inability to describe the enemies
worth killing, the battles worth winning, and the future worth creating." Managing the global campaign to democratize the world
is no easy task. Barnett admits that in a worst-case scenario we may be stuck in the "mother of all intifadas" in Iraq. Critics
claim this is something that we should have planned for - that the insurgency should not have been a surprise, and that it should
have been part of the "peacemaking" planning. Barnett blithely states that things will get better "...when America internationalizes
the occupation." Barnett should not engage in wishful thinking here, as he also does when he predicted that Iraqis would be put
in charge of their own country 18 months after the fall of Baghdad. It would be more accurate if he claimed this would happen
18 months after the cessation of hostilities. Some critics claim that Iraq is an example that we are an "empire in a hurry" (Michael
Ignatieff), which then results in: 1) allocating insufficient resources to non-military aspects of the project and 2) attempting
economic and political transformation in an unrealistically short time frame.
The final basic premise of Barnett's theory of the Core and the Gap is the concept of what he calls the "global transaction
strategy." Barnett explains it best: "America's essential transaction with the outside world is one of our exporting security
in return for the world's financing a lifestyle we could far more readily afford without all that defense spending." Barnett claims
that America pays the most for global stability because we enjoy it the most. But what about the other 80 countries in the Core?
Why is America, like Atlas, bearing the weight of the world's security and stabilization on its shoulders?
Barnett claims that historical analogies are useless today and point us in the wrong direction. I disagree. James Madison cautioned
us not to go abroad to seek monsters to destroy. We can learn from his simple and profound statement that there are simply too
many state (and individual) monsters in today's world for the U.S. to destroy unilaterally or preemptively. We must also avoid
overstretching our resources and power. Thucydides reminds us that the great democracy of Athens was brought to its knees by the
ill-advised Sicilian expedition - which resulted in the destruction of everything the Athenians held dear. Do not ignore history
as Barnett councils; heed it.
Globalization is likely here to stay, though it may be slowed down or even stopped in some regions of the planet.
Therefore, America needs to stay engaged in the affairs of the world, but Barnett has not offered conclusive evidence that the
U.S. needs to become the world's single Leviathan that must extinguish all global hot wars. Barnett also has not proved that America
needs to be, as he writes, "the one willing to rush in when everyone else is running away." People like Barnett in academia and
leaders in government may proclaim and ordain the U.S. to be a global Leviathan, but it is a conscious choice that should be thoroughly
debated by the American people. After all, it is upon the backs of the American people that such a global Leviathan must ride.
Where is the debate? The American people, upon reflection, may decide upon other courses of action.
I would strongly recommend "The Pentagon's New Map" to students who are studying U.S. foreign policy. I would also recommend
it to those who are studying the Bush administration as well as the Pentagon. The ideas in the book seem to be popular with the
military and many of its ideas can be seen in the current thinking and policy of the Pentagon and State Department.
It seems to be well researched - having 35 pages of notes. Many of Barnett's citations come from the Washington Post and the
New York Times, which some may see as a liberal bias, but I see the sources as simply newspapers of record.
I would only caution the reader that Barnett's theories are heavily dependent upon the continued advancement of globalization,
which in turn is dependent upon the continued economic ability of the U.S. to sustain military operations around the world indefinitely.
Neither is guaranteed.
I don't think poorly of Thomas Barnett himself. He's very bright and, I think, good hearted, BUT his well thought-out, well
argued pride and joy (and positive intellectual pursuit) is being badly distorted ---- which happens to all 'tools' that Empire
gets its hands on.
For those who like predictions, I would predict that Barnett will wind up going through an epiphany much like Francis Fukuyama
(but a decade later) and for much the same reason, that his life's work gets misused and abused so greatly that he works to reverse
and correct its misuse. Fukuyama, also brilliant, wrote "The End of History" in 1992 (which was misused by the neocons to engender
war), and now he's working just as hard to reverse a misuse that he may feel some guilt of his work supporting, and is writing
"The Future of History" as a force for good --- and I suspect (and hope) that Barnett will, in even less time, be counter-thinking
and developing the strategy and book to reverse the misuse of his 2004 book before the Global Empire pulls down the curtain.
"Globalization" has turned out to be nothing but the polite PR term to disguise and avoid the truth of using the more accurate
name, "Global Empire" --- and there is no doubt that Barnett is more than smart enough to see that this has inexorably happened.
Best luck and love to the fast expanding 'Occupy the Empire' educational and revolutionary movement against this deceitful,
guileful, disguised EMPIRE, which can't so easily be identified as wearing Red Coats, Red Stars, nor funny looking Nazi helmets
---- quite yet!
Liberty, democracy, justice, and equality Over Violent/'Vichy' Rel 2.0 Empire,
Alan MacDonald
Sanford, Maine
We don't MERELY have; a gun/fear problem, or a 'Fiscal Cliff', 'Sequestration', and 'Debt Limit' problem, or an expanding
wars problem, or a 'drone assassinations' problem, or a vast income & wealth inequality problem, or a Wall Street 'looting' problem,
or a Global Warming and environmental death-spiral problem, or a domestic tyranny NDAA FISA spying problem, or, or, or, or ....
ad nauseam --- we have a hidden EMPIRE cancerous tumor which is the prime CAUSE of all these 'symptom problems'.
"If your country is treating you like ****, and bombing abroad, look carefully --- because it may not be your country, but
a Global Empire only posing as your former country."
"... Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003. ..."
"... If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents. ..."
People who seem to think that Trump's generals will somehow go along and support his original vision are sadly mistaken.
Since 2003, Israel has had an increasingly strong hand in the vetting who gets promoted to upper positions in the American
armed forces. All of the generals Trump has at his side went through a vetting procedure which definitely involved a very close
look at their opinions about Israel.
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened
in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003.
Officers who openly oppose the dictates of the Israel Lobby will see their prospects for advancement simply vanish like a whiff
of smoke.. Those who support Israel's machinations are rewarded with promotions, the more fervent the support the more rapid the
promotion especially if this knowledge is made known to their congressman or senator..
Generals who support Israel already know that this support will be heavily rewarded after their retirements by being given
lucrative six figure positions on company boards of directors or positions in equally lucrative think tanks like the American
Enterprise Institution or the Hoover Institute. They will receive hefty speaking fees. as well. They learned early that their
retirements could be truly glorious if they only "went" along with The Lobby. They will be able to then live the good life in
expensive places like Washington, New York or San Francisco, often invited to glitzy parties with unlimited amount of free prawns
"the size of your hand".
On the other hand, upper officers who somehow get then get "bad" reputations for their negative views about Israel ( like Karen
U. Kwiatkowski for instance) will end up, once retired, having to depend on just their often scanty pensions This requires getting
an often demeaning second jobs to get by in some place where "their dollar goes further". No bright lights in big cities for them.
No speaking fees, no college jobs. Once their fate becomes known, their still active duty contemporaries suddenly decide to "go
along".
If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years
ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents.
Face it, we live in a country under occupation by a hostile power that we willingly pay large amounts monetary tribute to.
Our government does whatever benefits Israel regardless of how negatively this effects the USA. We are increasing troop strength
in Afghanistan because, somehow, this benefits Israel. If our presence in Afghanistan (or the Mideast in general) didn't benefit
Israel, our troops would simply not be there.
"... Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003. ..."
"... If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents. ..."
People who seem to think that Trump's generals will somehow go along and support his original vision are sadly mistaken.
Since 2003, Israel has had an increasingly strong hand in the vetting who gets promoted to upper positions in the American
armed forces. All of the generals Trump has at his side went through a vetting procedure which definitely involved a very close
look at their opinions about Israel.
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski has written extensively about the purges of the patriots in the Defense Department that happened
in Washington during the lead up and after the commencement of the Iraq war in 2003.
Officers who openly oppose the dictates of the Israel Lobby will see their prospects for advancement simply vanish like a whiff
of smoke.. Those who support Israel's machinations are rewarded with promotions, the more fervent the support the more rapid the
promotion especially if this knowledge is made known to their congressman or senator..
Generals who support Israel already know that this support will be heavily rewarded after their retirements by being given
lucrative six figure positions on company boards of directors or positions in equally lucrative think tanks like the American
Enterprise Institution or the Hoover Institute. They will receive hefty speaking fees. as well. They learned early that their
retirements could be truly glorious if they only "went" along with The Lobby. They will be able to then live the good life in
expensive places like Washington, New York or San Francisco, often invited to glitzy parties with unlimited amount of free prawns
"the size of your hand".
On the other hand, upper officers who somehow get then get "bad" reputations for their negative views about Israel ( like Karen
U. Kwiatkowski for instance) will end up, once retired, having to depend on just their often scanty pensions This requires getting
an often demeaning second jobs to get by in some place where "their dollar goes further". No bright lights in big cities for them.
No speaking fees, no college jobs. Once their fate becomes known, their still active duty contemporaries suddenly decide to "go
along".
If anybody thinks what I have written is an exaggeration, research what the late Admiral Thomas Moorer had to say years
ago about the total infiltration of the Defense Department by Israeli agents.
Face it, we live in a country under occupation by a hostile power that we willingly pay large amounts monetary tribute to.
Our government does whatever benefits Israel regardless of how negatively this effects the USA. We are increasing troop strength
in Afghanistan because, somehow, this benefits Israel. If our presence in Afghanistan (or the Mideast in general) didn't benefit
Israel, our troops would simply not be there.
"... One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. ..."
"... We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. ..."
"... It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/ ..."
"... Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated" near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow, doubt it. ..."
"... This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia. ..."
"... Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat. ..."
"... Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." ..."
"... You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable. ..."
An article by Robert Berke in oilprice.com, which describes itself as "The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News," illustrates how interest
groups control outcomes by how they shape policy choices.
Berke's article reveals how the US intends to maintain and extend its hegemony by breaking up the alliance between Russia, Iran,
and China, and by oil privatizations that result in countries losing control over their sovereignty to private oil companies that
work closely with the US government. As Trump has neutered his presidency by gratuitously accepting Gen. Flynn's resignation as National
Security Advisor, this scheme is likely to be Trump's approach to "better relations" with Russia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China. Should Putin fall for such a scheme, it would be a fatal strategic blunder
from which Russia could not recover. Yet, Putin will be pressured to make this blunder.
One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West
and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent
to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient
directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. Moreover, the West with its hegemonic impulses uses economic
relationships for control purposes. Trade with China and Asia does not pose the same threat to Russian independence.
Berke says that part of the deal being offered to Putin is "increased access to the huge European energy market, restored western
financial credit, access to Western technology, and a seat at the global decision-making table, all of which Russia badly needs and
wants." Sweetening the honey trap is official recognization of "Crimea as part of Russia."
Russia might want all of this, but it is nonsense that Russia needs any of it.
Crimea is part of Russia, as it has been for 300 years, and no one can do anything about it. What would it mean if Mexico did
not recognize that Texas and California were part of the US? Nothing.
Europe has scant alternatives to Russian energy. Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology
is superior to that in the West. And Russia most certainly does not need Western loans. Indeed, it would be an act of insanity
to accept them.
It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is
a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
The Russian central bank has convinced the Russian government that it would be inflationary to finance Russian development
projects with the issuance of central bank credit. Foreign loans are essential, claims the central bank.
Someone needs to teach the Russian central bank basic economics before Russia is turned into another Western vassal. Here is the
lesson: When central bank credit is used to finance development projects, the supply of rubles increases but so does output from
the projects. Thus, goods and services rise with the supply of rubles. When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money
supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into
its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence
of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Foreign capital is not important to countries such as Russia and China. Both countries are perfectly capable of financing their
own development. Indeed, China is the world's largest creditor nation. Foreign loans are only important to countries that lack the
internal resources for development and have to purchase the business know-how, techlology, and resources abroad with foreign currencies
that their exports are insufficient to bring in.
This is not the case with Russia, which has large endowments of resources and a trade surplus. China's development was given a
boost by US corporations that moved their production for the US market offshore in order to pocket the difference in labor and regulatory
costs.
Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent
of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal
debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/
Clearly, if the massive debt of the US government is not a problem, the tiny debt of Russia is not a problem.
Berke's article is part of the effort to scam Russia by convincing the Russian government that its prosperity depends on unfavorable
deals with the West. As Russia's neoliberal economists believe this, the scam has a chance of success.
Another delusion affecting the Russian government is the belief that privatization brings in capital. This delusion caused the
Russian government to turn over 20 percent of its oil company to foreign ownership. The only thing Russia achieved by this strategic
blunder was to deliver 20 percent of its oil profits into foreign hands. For a one-time payment, Russia gave away 20 percent of its
oil profits in perpetuity.
To repeat outselves, the greatest threat that Russia faces is not sanctions but the incompetence of its neoliberal economists
who have been throughly brainwashed to serve US interests.
When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia
does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues
the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does
is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Yes, correct. But this is an IMF rule, and Russia is an IMF member. To control its monetary policy it would have to get out.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important
to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"!
This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to be lifted, because this will also force
us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been expanding by leaps and bounds for the last
two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder – 2-3% of the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St.
Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West, who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions
didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up?
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to
Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"! This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to
be lifted, because this will also force us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been
expanding by leaps and bounds for the last two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder - 2-3% of
the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St. Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West,
who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say - why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up? ;)
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too
bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity
and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow,
doubt it.
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign. At any
rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that fears gentile
nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed.
Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against
humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine
face I, somehow, doubt it.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin a little
bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough to see
through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
The Russians can't be flummoxed, they aren't children. Russia and China border each other so they have a natural mutual interest
in having their east-west areas be stable and safe, particularly when the US threatens both of them. This geography isn't going
to change. Abandoning clients such as Syria and Iran would irreversibly damage the Russian brand as being unreliable therefore
they'd find it impossible to attract any others in the future. They know this so it's unlikely they would be so rash as to snap
at any bait dangled in front of them. And, as pointed out, the bait really isn't all that irresistible. It's always best to negotiate
from a position of strength and they realize that. American policy deep thinkers are often fantasists who bank upon their chess
opponents making hoped-for predictable moves. That doesn't happen in real life.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this already.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia–a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within the
largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin adjusted
his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that many of
them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced to get down
from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a good hint on
where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still–I personally am not convinced yet. We'll see.
In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains still being around–people
who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov. Let's not forget that
despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure as a Director of FSB,
Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his career. I know for a
fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry. Enough to mention
his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main ideologue behind Russia's
military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade) but who never served a day
in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing with the consequences.
This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation–hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
He has not done it already because he just cannot let go of his dream to have it as he did in 2003, when Russia Germany and
France together blocked legality of US war in Iraq. Putin still hopes for a good working relationship with major West European
powers. Italy France and even Germany.
He still hopes to draw them away from the US. However the obvious gains from Import substitution campaign make it apparent
that Russia does benefit from sanctions, that Russia can get anything it wants in technology from the East rather than the West.
So the break with Western orientation is in the making. Hopefully.
You forgot to mention the "moderate" jihadis, including the operatives from NATO, Israel, and US. (It seems that the Ukrainian
"patriots" that have been bombing the civilians in East Ukraine, also include special "patriots" from the same unholy trinity:
https://www.roguemoney.net/stories/2016/12/6/there-are-troops-jack-us-army-donbass
). There has been also a certain asymmetry in means: look at the map for the number and location of the US/NATO military bases.
At least we can see that RF has been trying to avoid the hot phase of WWIII.
http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/NATO-vs-Russia640.jpg
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign.
At any rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that
fears gentile nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is Jewish Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
On the power and privilege that really rule the US:
"Sanctions – economic sanctions, as most of them are, can only stand and 'succeed', as long as countries, who oppose Washington's
dictate remain bound into the western, dollar-based, fraudulent monetary scheme. The system is entirely privatized by a small
Zionist-led elite. FED, Wall Street, Bank for International Settlement (BIS), are all private institutions, largely controlled
by the Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan et al clans. They are also supported by the Breton Woods Organizations, IMF and World Bank,
conveniently created under the Charter of the UN.
Few progressive economists understand how this debt-based pyramid scam is manipulating the entire western economic system. When
in a just world, it should be just the contrary, the economy that shapes, designs and decides the functioning of the monetary
system and policy.
Even Russia, with Atlantists still largely commanding the central bank and much of the financial system, isn't fully detached
from the dollar dominion – yet."
"I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this (nationalize the "central bank) already".
I read about a rumor a few years ago that Putin has been warned that nationalizing the now private Russian central bank will
bring absolutely dire consequences to both him and Russia. It is simply a step he cannot take.
How dire are the potential consequences? Consider that the refusal of the American government to reauthorize the private central
bank in the US brought about the War of 1812. The Americans learned their lesson and quickly reauthorized the private bank after
the war had ended.
Numerous attempts were made to assassinate President Andrew Jacksons specifically because of his refusal to reauthorize the
private central bank.
Here it is in audio form so you can just relax and just listen at your leisure.
*ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS* By Michael Rivero https://youtu.be/WN0Y3HRiuxo
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to
force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired
in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
300 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
This is rich from a Ukrainian nationalist ruled by Groysman/Kagans.
First, figure out who is your saint, a collaborationist Bandera (Babiy Yar and such) or a triple-sitizenship Kolomojski (auto-da-fe
of civilians in Odessa). If you still want to bring Holodomor to a discussion, then you need to be reminded that 80% of Ukrainian
Cheka at that time were Jewish. If you still think that Russians are the root of all evil, then try to ask the US for more money
for pensions, education, and healthcare – instead of weaponry. Here are the glorious results of the US-approved governance from
Kiev: http://gnnliberia.com/2017/02/17/liberia-ahead-ukraine-index-economic-freedom-2017/
"Liberia, Chad, Afghanistan, Sudan and Angola are ahead of Ukraine. All these countries are in the group of repressed economies
(49.9-40 scores). Ukraine's economy has contracted deeply and remains very fragile."
Here are your relationships with your neighbors on the other side – Poland and Romania:
"The right-winged conservative orientation of Warsaw makes it remember old Polish-Ukrainian arguments and scores, and claim its
rights on the historically Polish lands of Western Ukraine"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/01/17/poland-will-begin-dividing-ukraine/
" the "Assembly of Bukovina Romanians" has recently applied to Petro Poroshenko demanding a territorial autonomy to the Chernivtsi
region densely populated by Romanians. The "Assembly" motivated its demand with the Ukrainian president's abovementioned statement
urging territorial autonomy for the Crimean Tatars."
https://eadaily.com/en/news/2016/06/30/what-is-behind-romanias-activity-in-ukraine
And please read some history books about Crimea. Or at least Wikipedia:
"In 1783, Crimea was annexed by the Russian Empire. In 1954, the Crimean Oblast was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic by Nikita Khrushchev (a Soviet dictator). In 2014, a 96.77 percent of Crimeans voted for integration of the region into
the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout." You see, the Crimeans do not like Nuland-Kagan and Pravyj Sector.
Do you know why?
100 Words @Seamus
Padraig Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin
a little bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough
to see through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
well it depends. if putin is just out for himself, I can see him getting in bed with kissinger and co. if he is about russia,
he would not. that is how I see it. it isn't about if putin is smart or stupid. just a choice and where his royalty lies.
100 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine.
How so? #Krymnash
Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves.
If by "decline" you mean "expects this year a modest growth as opposed to previous years" then you might be right.
I've been reading about Russia's imminent collapse and the annihilation of the economy since forever. Some no-names like you
(or some Big Names with agenda) had been predicting it every year. Still didn't happen.
Putin is almost down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid
now.
Can I see a source for that?
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
False equivalence.
P.S. Hey, Quart – how is Bezviz? Also – are you not cold here? Or are you one of the most racally pure Ukrs, currently residing
in Ontario province (Canada), from whence you teach your less lucky raguls in Nizalezhnaya how to be more racially pure? Well,
SUGS to be you!
@Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Do you have any links to verify this that Russia is down to bedrock,from everything I read and have read Russia's do pretty
damn good, or is this just some more of your endless antiRussian propaganda,,
A scandal of a EU member Poland:
http://thesaker.is/zmiana-piskorski-and-the-case-for-polish-liberation/
Two days after he [Piskorski] publicly warned that US-NATO troops now have a mandate to suppress Polish dissent on the grounds
of combatting "Russian hybrid war," he was snatched up by armed agents of Poland's Internal Security Agency while taking his children
to school on May 18th, 2016. He was promptly imprisoned in Warsaw, where he remains with no formal charges to this day."
With the Poland's entry into EU, "Poland did not "regain" sovereignty, much less justice, but forfeited such to the Atlanticist
project Poland has been de-industrialized, and thus deprived of the capacity to pursue independent and effective social and economic
policies Now, with the deployment of thousands of US-NATO troops, tanks, and missile systems on its soil and the Polish government's
relinquishment of jurisdiction over foreign armed forces on its territory, Poland is de facto under occupation. This occupation
is not a mere taxation on Poland's national budget – it is an undeniable liquidation of sovereignty and inevitably turns the country
into a direct target and battlefield in the US' provocative war on Russia."
" it's not the Russians who are going to occupy us now – they left here voluntarily 24 years ago. It's not the Russians that
have ravaged Polish industry since 1989. It's not the Russians that have stifled Poles with usurious debt. Finally, it's not the
Russians that are responsible for the fact that we have become the easternmost aircraft carrier of the United States anchored
in Europe. We ourselves, who failed by allowing such traitors into power, are to blame for this."
More from a comment section: "Donald Tusk, who is now President of the European Council, whose grandfather, Josef Tusk, served
in Hitler's Wehrmacht, has consistently demanded that the Kiev regime imposed by the US and EU deal with the Donbass people brutally,
"as with terrorists". While the Polish special services were training the future participants of the Maidan operations and the
ethnic cleansing of the Donbass, the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs made this official statement (02-02-2014): "We support
the hard line taken by the Right Sector The radical actions of the Right Sector and other militant groups of demonstrators and
the use of force by protesters are justified The Right Sector has taken full responsibility for all the acts of violence during
the recent protests. This is an honest position, and we respect it. The politicians have failed at their peacekeeping function.
This means that the only acceptable option is the radical actions of the Right Sector. There is no other alternative".
In short, the US has been the most active enabler of the neo-Nazi movement in Europe. Mrs. Clinton seemingly did not get a
memo about who is "new Hitler."
Do you happen to know anything about western financial giants' influence upon Russia's "Atlanticist Integrationists"?
It's low hanging fruit for me to take a pick, but I am thinking The Goldman Sachs Group is well ensconced among Russian "Atlanticist
Integrationists."
You guys are top seeded pros at uncovering Deep State-banker secrets. In contrast, I drive school bus and I struggle to even
balance the family Wells Fargo debit card!
However, since our US Congress has anointed a seasoned G.S.G. veteran, Steve Mnuchin, as the administration's Treasury Secretary,
he has become my favorite "Person of Interest" who I suspect spouts a Ural Mountain-level say as to how "Atlanticist Integrationists"
operate.
Speaking very respectfully, I hope my question does not get "flummoxed" into resource rich Siberia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead
.
Most likely the Spirit of Anti-Christ keeping them alive to do his bidding.
@Priss Factor
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
What an amazing whoring performance for the war-manufacturers! And here is an interesting morsel of information about the belligerent
Frau der Leyen:
http://www.dw.com/en/stanford-accuses-von-der-leyen-of-misrepresentation/a-18775432
"Stanford university has said Ursula von der Leyen is misrepresenting her affiliation with the school. The German defense minister's
academic career is already under scrutiny after accusations of plagiarism." No kidding. Some "Ursula von der Leyen' values" indeed.
I doubt we'll see little change from the Trump administration toward Russia.
From SOTT:
Predictable news coming out of Yemen: Saudi-backed "Southern Resistance" forces and Hadi loyalists, alongside al-Qaeda of
the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), launched a new offensive against the Houthis in western Yemen on Wednesday.
This is not the first time Saudi-backed (and by extension, Washington-backed) forces have teamed up with al-Qaeda in Yemen
.
Yemen is quickly becoming the "spark that lights the powder keg". The conflict has already killed, maimed and displaced
countless thousands (thanks to the stellar lack of reporting from trustworthy western news sources, we can only estimate the
scale of Saudi/U.S. crimes in Yemen), but now it seems that elements of the Trump administration are keen on escalation, likely
in hopes of giving Washington an excuse to carpet bomb Tehran.
Apparently, we feel satisfied fighting with our old allies, al-Qaeda and Saudis.
I think that the authors may be underestimating Putin in his determination to keep Russia and the Russian economy independent.
For example, I find this rumoured offer of "increased access to the huge European energy market" very funny, for at least two
reasons:
1) US wants to sell hydrocarbons (LPG) to the European market at significantly higher prices than the Russian prices, and
2) the current dependence of EU countries on the Russian energy would have never happened if there were better alternatives.
In other words, any detente offer that the West would make to Russia would last, as usual, not even until the signature ink
dries on the new cooperation agreements. Putin does not look to me like someone who suffers much from wishful thinking.
The Russian relationship with China is not a bed of roses, but it is not China which is increasing military activity all
around Russia, it is the West. Also, so far China has shown no interest in regime-changing Russia and dividing it into pieces.
Would you rather believe in the reform capability of an addict in violence or someone who does not need to reform? Would the West
self-reform and sincerely renounce violence just by signing a new agreement with Russia?
The new faux detente will never happen, as long as Putin is alive.
Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat.
The only one stopping Trump is Putin or Russia's missile defenses.
Indeed, Putin's main inside enemy is Russia's central bank, or the Jewish oligarchs in Russia (Atlanticists). Also Russia needs
to foster and encourage small&medium enterprises, that need cheap credit, to create competitive markets, where no prices are fixed
and market shares change. These are most efficient resource users.
In the US, Wallstreet controls government = fascism = the IG Farben- Auschwitz concentration camps to maximize profits. This
is the direction for the US economy.
Meanwhile in the EU, the former Auschwitz owners IG Farben (Bayer(Monsanto), Hoechst, BASF) the EU chemical giants, who have
patented all natures molecules, are in controll again over EU. Deutsche bank et allies is eating Greece, Italy, Spain's working
classes, using AUSTERITY as their creed.
So what is new? Nothing, the supercorporate-fascist elites are the same families, who 's morality is unchanged in a 100 years.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
I would really love to like Putin and I am trying but him protecting all those criminals and not reversing the history greatest
heist of 90′s makes it impossible. While I am behind all his moves to restore Russian military and foreign policy, I am still
waiting for more on home front. Note, not only the Bank must be nationalized. Everything, all industries, factories and other
assets privatized by now must be returned to rightful owner. Public which over 70 years through great sacrifice built all of it.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia--a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within
the largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin
adjusted his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that
many of them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced
to get down from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a
good hint on where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still--I personally am not convinced
yet. We'll see. In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains
still being around--people who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov.
Let's not forget that despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure
as a Director of FSB, Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his
career. I know for a fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry.
Enough to mention his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main
ideologue behind Russia's military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade)
but who never served a day in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing
with the consequences. This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation--hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
Smoothie, you seem to have natural aversion towards lawyers
Albeit, the first Vladimir, I mean Lenin also was a lawyers by education still he was a rather quick study. Remember that military
communism and Lenin after one year after Bolsheviks took power telling that state capitalism would be great step forward for Russia
whcih obviously was backward and ruined by wars at the time and he proceeded with New Economic Policy and Lenin despite not being
industry captain realized pretty well what constituted state power hence GOELRO plans and electrification of all Russia plans
and so forth which was later turned by Stalin and his team into reality.
Now, Lenin was ideologically motivated and so is Putin. But he clearly has been trying to achieve different results by keeping
same people around him and doing same things. Hopefully it is changing now, but it is so much wasted time when old Vladimir was
always repeating that time is of essence and delay is like death knell. Putin imho is away too relax and even vain in some way,
hence those shirtless pictures and those on the bike. And the way he walks a la "Я Московский озорной гуляка". As you said it
looks like he is protecting those criminals who must be prosecuted and yes, many executed for what they caused.
I suspect in cases when it comes to economical development he is not picking right people for those jobs and it is his major
responsibility to assign right people and delegate power properly, not to be forgotten to reverse what constitutes the history
greatest heist and crime so called "privatization". Basically returning to more communal society minus Politburo.
There is a huge elephant in the room too. Russia demographic situation which I doubt can be addressed under current liberal
order. all states which are in liberal state of affairs fail to basically procreate hence these waves of immigrants brought into
all Western Nations. Russia cannot do it. It would be suicide which is what all Western countries are doing right now.
Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology is superior to that in the West.
You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech
industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would
stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable.
Some home reading (sorry, they are in Russian, but one ought to know the language if one writes about the country).
"... Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers. ..."
"... Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him to act. This was the beginning of downward slope. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer. ..."
"... The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have been there anyway. ..."
"... No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful way ..."
"... " ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American people." ..."
"... All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests. ..."
"... A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated the 98% poor, to stay rich. When there were insurrections federal troops restored order. Also FDR put down strikes with troops. ..."
"... The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter. ..."
"... "The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story after another would achieve the desired result " ..."
"... But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world. ..."
"... I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and facts don't matter! ..."
"... Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about intimidating them. ..."
"... The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was, and that means as bad as Hell itself. ..."
"... Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the 60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally flawed. I would say more so. ..."
"... Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than during Obama administration. ..."
"... That pre-9/11 "cooperation" nearly destroyed Russia. Nobody in Russia (except, perhaps, for Pussy Riot) wants a return to the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it. ..."
"... [The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank. ..."
"... Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran. ..."
"... Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington. ..."
"... Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who dictates what they can and can't say. ..."
"... Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt, compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into something much worse. ..."
"... Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six month actions – they go on and on.) ..."
"... Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are we attacking with drones? Where is congress? ..."
"... Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies. ..."
Sadly, Brennan's propaganda coup only works on what the Bell Curve crowd up there would call
the dumbest and most technologically helpless 1.2σ. Here is how people with half a
brain interpret the latest CIA whoppers.
Again Mike Whitney does not get it. Though in the first part of the article I thought he
would. He was almost getting there. The objective was to push new administration into the
corner from which it could not improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he
wanted to during the campaign.
Convincing Americans in Russia's influence or Russia collusion
with Trump was only a tool that would create pressure on Trump that together with the fear of
paralysis of his administration and impeachment would push Trump into the corner from which
the only thing he could do was to worsen relations with Russia. What American people believe
or not is really secondary. With firing of Gen. Flynn Trump acted exactly as they wanted him
to act. This was the beginning of downward slope.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration. Trump can concentrate on Iran in which he will be supported by
all sides and factions including the media. Even Larry David will approve not only the
zionist harpies like Pam Geller, Rita Katz and Ilana Mercer.
The only part that is absurd is that Russia posed a bona fide threat to the US. I'm fine
with the idea that he ruined Brennen's plans in Syria. But thats just ego we shouldn't have
been there anyway.
No one really cares about Ukraine. And the European/Russian trade zone? No one cares. The
Eurozone has its hands full with Greece and the rest of the old EU. I have a feeling they
have already gone way too far and are more likely to shrink than expand in any meaningful
way
The one thing I am not positive about. If the elite really believe that Russia is a
threat, then Americans have done psych ops on themselves.
The US was only interested in Ukraine because it was there. Next in line on a map. The
rather shocking disinterest in investing money -- on both sides -- is inexplicable if it was
really important. Most of it would be a waste -- but still. The US stupidly spent $5 billion
on something -- getting duped by politicians and got theoretical regime change, but it was
hell to pry even $1 billion for real economic aid.
" ..factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people."
All the more powerfully put because of its recognisably comical. understatement. Thank you Mr Whitney. Brilliant article that would be all over the mainstream media were
the US MSM an instrument of American rather than globalist interests.
I am reading Howard Zinn, A Peoples History of the USA, 1492 to the Present.
A sad story, how the USA always was a police state, where the two percent rich manipulated
the 98% poor, to stay rich.
When there were insurrections federal troops restored order.
Also FDR put down strikes with troops.
You should be aware that Zinn's book is not, IMO, an honest attempt at writing history. It
is conscious propaganda intended to make Americans believe exactly what you are taking from
it.
The elephant in the room is Israel and the neocons , this is the force that controls America
and Americas foreign policy , Brennan and the 17 intel agencies are puppets of the mossad and
Israel, that is the brutal fact of the matter.
Until that fact changes Americans will continue to fight and die for Israel.
"The absence of evidence suggests that Russia hacking narrative is a sloppy and
unprofessional disinformation campaign that was hastily slapped together by over confident
Intelligence officials who believed that saturating the public airwaves with one absurd story
after another would achieve the desired result "
But it DID achieve the desired result! Trump folded under the pressure, and went full out
neoliberal. Starting with his missile attack on Syria, he is now OK with spending trillions
fighting pointless endless foreign wars on the other side of the world.
I think maybe half the US population does believe the Russian hacking thing, but that's
not really the issue. I think that the pre-Syrian attack media blitz was more a statement of
brute power to Trump: WE are in charge here, and WE can take you down and impeach you, and
facts don't matter!
Sometimes propaganda is about persuading people. And sometimes, I think, it is about
intimidating them.
Whitney is another author who declares the "Russians did it" narrative a psyop. He then
devotes entire columns to the psyop, "naww Russia didn't do it". There could be plenty to write about – recent laws that do undercut liberty, but no,
the Washington Post needs fake opposition to its fake news so you have guys like Whitney in
the less-mainstream fake news media.
So Brennan wanted revenge? Well that's simple enough to understand, without being too
stupid. But Whitney's whopper of a lie is what you're supposed to unquestionably believe. The
US has "rival political parties". Did you miss it?
The US is doing nothing more than acting as the British Empire 2.0. WASP culture was born of a Judaizing heresy: Anglo-Saxon Puritanism. That meant that the
WASP Elites of every are pro-Jewish, especially in order to wage war, physical and/or
cultural, against the vast majority of white Christians they rule.
By the early 19th century, The Brit Empire's Elites also had a strong, and growing, dose
of pro-Arabic/pro-Islamic philoSemitism. Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and
most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which
means being pro-Wahhabi and permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite
Mohammedans.
So, by the time of Victoria's high reign, the Brit WASP Elites were a strange brew of
hardcoree pro-Jewish and hardcore pro-Arabic/islamic. The US foreign policy of today is an
attempt to put those two together and force it on everyone and make it work.
The Brit secret service, in effect, created and trained not merely the CIA but also the
Mossad and Saudi Arabia's General Intelligence Presidency. All four are defined by endless
lies, endless acts of utterly amoral savagery. All 4 are at least as bad as the KGB ever was,
and that means as bad as Hell itself.
Fair enough. I didn't know that about the foreword. If accurate, that's a reasonable
approach for a book.
Here's the problem.
Back when O. Cromwell was the dictator of England, he retained an artist to paint him. The
custom of the time was for artists to "clean up" their subjects, in a primitive form of
photoshopping.
OC being a religious fanatic, he informed the artist he wished to be portrayed as God had
made him, "warts and all." (Ollie had a bunch of unattractive facial warts.) Or the artist
wouldn't be paid.
Traditional triumphalist American narrative history, as taught in schools up through the
60s or so, portrayed America as "wart-free." Since then, with Zinn's book playing a major
role, it has increasingly been portrayed as "warts-only," which is of course at least equally
flawed. I would say more so.
All I am asking is that American (and other) history be written "warts and all." The
triumphalist version is true, largely, and so is the Zinn version. Gone With the Wind
and Roots both portray certain aspects of the pre-war south fairly accurately..
America has been, and is, both evil and good. As is/was true of every human institution
and government in history. Personally, I believe America, net/net, has been one of the
greatest forces for human good ever. But nobody will realize that if only the negative side
of American history is taught.
"There must be something really dirty in Russigate that hasn't yet come out to generate
this level of panic."
You continue to claim what you cannot prove.
But then you are a Jews First Zionist.
Russia-Gate Jumps the Shark
Russia-gate has jumped the shark with laughable new claims about a tiny number of
"Russia-linked" social media ads, but the US mainstream media is determined to keep a
straight face
Most of that group became ardently pro-Sunni, and most of the pro-Sunni ones eventually
coalescing around promotion of the House of Saud, which means being pro-Wahhabi and
permanently desirous of killing or enslaving virtually all Shiite Mohammedans.
Thanks for the laugh. During the 19th century, the Sauds were toothless, dirt-poor hicks
from the deep desert of zero importance on the world stage.
The Brits were not Saudi proponents, in fact promoting the Husseins of Hejaz, the guys
Lawrence of Arabia worked with. The Husseins, the Sharifs of Mecca and rulers of Hejaz, were
the hereditary enemies of the Sauds of Nejd.
After WWI, the Brits installed Husseins as rulers of both Transjordan and Iraq, which with
the Hejaz meant the Sauds were pretty much surrounded. The Sauds conquered the Hejaz in 1924,
despite lukewarm British support for the Hejaz.
Nobody in the world cared much about the Saudis one way or another until massive oil
fields were discovered, by Americans not Brits, starting in 1938. There was no reason they
should. Prior to that Saudi prominence in world affairs was about equal to that of Chad
today, and for much the same reason. Chad (and Saudi Arabia) had nothing anybody else
wanted.
'Putin stopped talking about the "Lisbon to Vladivostok" free trade area long ago" --
Michael Kenney
Putin was simply trying to sell Russia's application for EU membership with the
catch-phrase "Lisbon to Vladivostok". He continued that until the issue was triply mooted (1)
by implosion of EU growth and boosterism, (2) by NATO's aggressive stance, in effect taken by
NATO in Ukraine events and in the Baltics, and, (3) Russia's alliance with China.
It is surely still true that Russians think of themselves, categorically, as Europeans.
OTOH, we can easily imagine that Russians in Vladivostok look at things differently than do
Russians in St. Petersburg. Then again, Vladivostok only goes back about a century and a
half.
Anyway, the mission was accomplished and the relations with Russia are worse now than
during Obama administration.
I generally agree with your comment, but that part strikes me as a bit of an exaggeration.
While relations with Russia certainly haven't improved, how have they really worsened? The
second round of sanctions that Trump reluctantly approved have yet to be implemented by
Europe, which was the goal. And apart from that, what of substance has changed?
It's not surprising that 57 percent of the American people believe in Russian meddling.
Didn't two-thirds of the same crowd believe that Saddam was behind 9/11, too? The American
public is being brainwashed 24 hours a day all year long.
The CIA is the world largest criminal and terrorist organization. With Brennan the worst
has come to the worst. The whole Russian meddling affair was initiated by the Obama/Clinton
gang in cooperation with 95 percent of the media. Nothing will come out of it.
This disinformation campaign might be the prelude to an upcoming war.
Right now, the US is run by jerks and idiots. Watch the video.
Only dumb people does not know that TRUMP IS NETANYAHU'S PUPPET.
The fifth column zionist jews are running the albino stooge and foreign policy in the
Middle East to expand Israel's interest against American interest that is TREASON. One of
these FIFTH COLUMNISTS is Jared Kushner. He should be arrested.
[The key figures who had primary influence on both Trump's and Bush's Iran policies held
views close to those of Israel's right-wing Likud Party. The main conduit for the Likudist
line in the Trump White House is Jared Kushner, the president's son-in-law, primary foreign
policy advisor, and longtime friend and supporter of Netanyahu. Kushner's parents are also
long-time supporters of Israeli settlements on the occupied West Bank.
Another figure to whom the Trump White House has turned is John Bolton, undersecretary of
state and a key policymaker on Iran in the Bush administration. Although Bolton was not
appointed Trump's secretary of state, as he'd hoped, he suddenly reemerged as a player on
Iran policy thanks to his relationship with Kushner. Politico reports that Bolton met with
Kushner a few days before the final policy statement was released and urged a complete
withdrawal from the deal in favor of his own plan for containing Iran.
Bolton spoke with Trump by phone on Thursday about the paragraph in the deal that vowed it
would be "terminated" if there was any renegotiation, according to Politico. He was calling
Trump from Las Vegas, where he'd been meeting with casino magnate Sheldon Adelson, the third
major figure behind Trump's shift towards Israeli issues. Adelson is a Likud supporter who
has long been a close friend of Netanyahu's and has used his Israeli tabloid newspaper Israel
Hayomto support Netanyahu's campaigns. He was Trump's main campaign contributor in 2016,
donating $100 million. Adelson's real interest has been in supporting Israel's interests in
Washington -- especially with regard to Iran.]
Putin's dream of Greater Europe is the death knell for the unipolar world order. It
means the economic center of the world will shift to Central Asia where abundant resources
and cheap labor of the east will be linked to the technological advances and the Capital
the of the west eliminating the need to trade in dollars or recycle profits into US
debt. The US economy will slip into irreversible decline, and the global hegemon will
steadily lose its grip on power. That's why it is imperative for the US prevail in
Ukraine– a critical land bridge connecting the two continents– and to topple
Assad in Syria in order to control vital resources and pipeline corridors. Washington
must be in a position where it can continue to force its trading partners to denominate
their resources in dollars and recycle the proceeds into US Treasuries if it is to maintain
its global primacy. The main problem is that Russia is blocking Uncle Sam's path to
success which is roiling the political establishment in Washington.
American dominance is very much tied to the dollar's role as the world's reserve currency,
and the rest of the world no longer want to fund this bankrupt, warlike state –
particularly the Chinese.
First, it confirms that the US did not want to see the jihadist extremists
defeated by Russia. These mainly-Sunni militias served as Washington's proxy-army
conducting an ambitious regime change operation which coincided with US strategic
ambitions.
The CIA run US/Israeli/ISIS alliance.
Second, Zakharova confirms that the western media is not an independent news
gathering organization, but a propaganda organ for the foreign policy establishment who
dictates what they can and can't say.
They are given the political line and they broadcast it.
The loosening of rules governing the dissemination of domestic propaganda coupled with
the extraordinary advances in surveillance technology, create the perfect conditions for
the full implementation of an American police state. But what is more concerning, is
that the primary levers of state power are no longer controlled by elected officials but by
factions within the state whose interests do not coincide with those of the American
people. That can only lead to trouble.
At some point Americans are going to get a "War on Domestic Terror" cheered along by the
media. More or less the arrest and incarceration of any opposition following the Soviet
Bolshevik model.
On the plus side, everyone now knows that the Anglo-US media from the NY Times to the
Economist, from WaPo to the Gruniard, and from the BBC to CNN, the CBC and Weinstein's
Hollywood are a worthless bunch of depraved lying bastards.
Such a truthful portrait of reality ! The ruling elite is indeed massively corrupt,
compromised, and controlled by dark forces. And the police state is already here. For most
people, so far, in the form of massive collection of personal data and increasing number of
mandatory regulations. But just one or two big false-flags away from progressing into
something much worse.
The thing is, no matter how thick the mental cages are, and how carefully they are
maintained by the daily massive injections of "certified" truth (via MSM), along with
neutralizing or compromising of "troublemakers", the presence of multiple alternative sources
in the age of Internet makes people to slip out of these cages one by one, and as the last
events show – with acceleration.
It means that there's a fast approaching tipping point after which it'd be impossible for
those in power both to keep a nice "civilized" face and to control the "cage-free"
population. So, no matter how the next war will be called, it will be the war against the
free Internet and free people. That's probably why N. Korean leader has no fear to start
one.
All government secrecy is a curse on mankind. Trump is releasing the JFK murder files to the public. Kudos! Let us hope he will follow up with a full 9/11 investigation.
The objective was to push new administration into the corner from which it could not
improve relations with Russia as Trump indicated that he wanted to during the campaign.
Good point. That was probably one of the objectives (and from the point of view of the
deep-state, perhaps the most important objective) of the "Russia hacked our democracy"
narrative, in addition to the general deligitimization of the Trump administration.
And, keep in mind, Washington's Sunni proxies were not a division of the Pentagon; they
were entirely a CIA confection: CIA recruited, CIA-armed, CIA-funded and
CIA-trained.
Clearly the CIA was making war on Syria. Is secret coercive covert action against sovereign
nations Ok? Is it legal? When was the CIA designated a war making entity – what part of the constitution OK's
that? Isn't the congress obliged by constitutional law to declare war? (These are NOT six
month actions – they go on and on.)
Are committees of six congressman and six senators, who meet in secret, just avoiding the
grave constitutional questions of war? We the People cannot even interrogate these
politicians. (These politicians make big money in the secrecy swamp when they leave
office.)
Syria is only one of many nations that the CIA is attacking – how many countries are
we attacking with drones? Where is congress?
Spying is one thing – covert action is another – covert is wrong – it
goes against world order. Every year after 9/11 they say things are worse – give them
more money more power and they will make things safe. That is BS!
9/11 has opened the flood gates to the US government attacking at will, the various
peoples of this Earth. That is NOT our prerogative.
We are being exceptionally arrogant.
Close the CIA – give the spying to the 16 other agencies.
"... While the Tea Party was critical of status-quo neoliberalism -- especially its cosmopolitanism and embrace of globalization and diversity, which was perfectly embodied by Obama's election and presidency -- it was not exactly anti-neoliberal. Rather, it was anti-left neoliberalism-, it represented a more authoritarian, right [wing] version of neoliberalism. ..."
"... Within the context of the 2016 election, Clinton embodied the neoliberal center that could no longer hold. Inequality. Suffering. Collapsing infrastructures. Perpetual war. Anger. Disaffected consent. ..."
"... Both Sanders and Trump were embedded in the emerging left and right responses to neoliberalism's crisis. Specifically, Sanders' energetic campaign -- which was undoubtedly enabled by the rise of the Occupy movement -- proposed a decidedly more "commongood" path. Higher wages for working people. Taxes on the rich, specifically the captains of the creditocracy. ..."
"... In other words, Trump supporters may not have explicitly voted for neoliberalism, but that's what they got. In fact, as Rottenberg argues, they got a version of right neoliberalism "on steroids" -- a mix of blatant plutocracy and authoritarianism that has many concerned about the rise of U.S. fascism. ..."
"... We can't know what would have happened had Sanders run against Trump, but we can think seriously about Trump, right and left neoliberalism, and the crisis of neoliberal hegemony. In other words, we can think about where and how we go from here. As I suggested in the previous chapter, if we want to construct a new world, we are going to have to abandon the entangled politics of both right and left neoliberalism; we have to reject the hegemonic frontiers of both disposability and marketized equality. After all, as political philosopher Nancy Fraser argues, what was rejected in the election of 2016 was progressive, left neoliberalism. ..."
"... While the rise of hyper-right neoliberalism is certainly nothing to celebrate, it does present an opportunity for breaking with neoliberal hegemony. We have to proceed, as Gary Younge reminds us, with the realization that people "have not rejected the chance of a better world. They have not yet been offered one."' ..."
In Chapter 1, we traced the rise of our neoliberal conjuncture back to the crisis of liberalism during the late nineteenth and
early twentieth centuries, culminating in the Great Depression. During this period, huge transformations in capitalism proved impossible
to manage with classical laissez-faire approaches. Out of this crisis, two movements emerged, both of which would eventually shape
the course of the twentieth century and beyond. The first, and the one that became dominant in the aftermath of the crisis, was the
conjuncture of embedded liberalism. The crisis indicated that capitalism wrecked too much damage on the lives of ordinary citizens.
People (white workers and families, especially) warranted social protection from the volatilities and brutalities of capitalism.
The state's public function was expanded to include the provision of a more substantive social safety net, a web of protections for
people and a web of constraints on markets. The second response was the invention of neoliberalism. Deeply skeptical of the common-good
principles that undergirded the emerging social welfare state, neoliberals began organizing on the ground to develop a "new" liberal
govemmentality, one rooted less in laissez-faire principles and more in the generalization of competition and enterprise. They worked
to envision a new society premised on a new social ontology, that is, on new truths about the state, the market, and human beings.
Crucially, neoliberals also began building infrastructures and institutions for disseminating their new' knowledges and theories
(i.e., the Neoliberal Thought Collective), as well as organizing politically to build mass support for new policies (i.e., working
to unite anti-communists, Christian conservatives, and free marketers in common cause against the welfare state). When cracks in
embedded liberalism began to surface -- which is bound to happen with any moving political equilibrium -- neoliberals were there
with new stories and solutions, ready to make the world anew.
We are currently living through the crisis of neoliberalism. As I write this book, Donald Trump has recently secured the U.S.
presidency, prevailing in the national election over his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Throughout the election, I couldn't
help but think back to the crisis of liberalism and the two responses that emerged. Similarly, after the Great Recession of 2008,
we've saw two responses emerge to challenge our unworkable status quo, which dispossesses so many people of vital resources for individual
and collective life. On the one hand, we witnessed the rise of Occupy Wall Street. While many continue to critique the movement for
its lack of leadership and a coherent political vision, Occupy was connected to burgeoning movements across the globe, and our current
political horizons have been undoubtedly shaped by the movement's success at repositioning class and economic inequality within our
political horizon. On the other hand, we saw' the rise of the Tea Party, a right-wing response to the crisis. While the Tea Party
was critical of status-quo neoliberalism -- especially its cosmopolitanism and embrace of globalization and diversity, which was
perfectly embodied by Obama's election and presidency -- it was not exactly anti-neoliberal. Rather, it was anti-left neoliberalism-,
it represented a more authoritarian, right [wing] version of neoliberalism.
Within the context of the 2016 election, Clinton embodied the neoliberal center that could no longer hold. Inequality. Suffering.
Collapsing infrastructures. Perpetual war. Anger. Disaffected consent. There were just too many fissures and fault lines in
the glossy, cosmopolitan world of left neoliberalism and marketized equality. Indeed, while Clinton ran on status-quo stories of
good governance and neoliberal feminism, confident that demographics and diversity would be enough to win the election, Trump effectively
tapped into the unfolding conjunctural crisis by exacerbating the cracks in the system of marketized equality, channeling political
anger into his celebrity brand that had been built on saying "f*** you" to the culture of left neoliberalism (corporate diversity,
political correctness, etc.) In fact, much like Clinton's challenger in the Democratic primary, Benie Sanders, Trump was a crisis
candidate.
Both Sanders and Trump were embedded in the emerging left and right responses to neoliberalism's crisis. Specifically, Sanders'
energetic campaign -- which was undoubtedly enabled by the rise of the Occupy movement -- proposed a decidedly more "commongood"
path. Higher wages for working people. Taxes on the rich, specifically the captains of the creditocracy.
Universal health care. Free higher education. Fair trade. The repeal of Citizens United. Trump offered a different response to
the crisis. Like Sanders, he railed against global trade deals like NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). However, Trump's
victory was fueled by right neoliberalism's culture of cruelty. While Sanders tapped into and mobilized desires for a more egalitarian
and democratic future, Trump's promise was nostalgic, making America "great again" -- putting the nation back on "top of the world,"
and implying a time when women were "in their place" as male property, and minorities and immigrants were controlled by the state.
Thus, what distinguished Trump's campaign from more traditional Republican campaigns was that it actively and explicitly pitted
one group's equality (white men) against everyone else's (immigrants, women, Muslims, minorities, etc.). As Catherine Rottenberg
suggests, Trump offered voters a choice between a multiracial society (where folks are increasingly disadvantaged and dispossessed)
and white supremacy (where white people would be back on top). However, "[w]hat he neglected to state," Rottenberg writes,
is that neoliberalism flourishes in societies where the playing field is already stacked against various segments of society,
and that it needs only a relatively small select group of capital-enhancing subjects, while everyone else is ultimately dispensable.
1
In other words, Trump supporters may not have explicitly voted for neoliberalism, but that's what they got. In fact, as Rottenberg
argues, they got a version of right neoliberalism "on steroids" -- a mix of blatant plutocracy and authoritarianism that has many
concerned about the rise of U.S. fascism.
We can't know what would have happened had Sanders run against Trump, but we can think seriously about Trump, right and left
neoliberalism, and the crisis of neoliberal hegemony. In other words, we can think about where and how we go from here. As I suggested
in the previous chapter, if we want to construct a new world, we are going to have to abandon the entangled politics of both right
and left neoliberalism; we have to reject the hegemonic frontiers of both disposability and marketized equality. After all, as political
philosopher Nancy Fraser argues, what was rejected in the election of 2016 was progressive, left neoliberalism.
While the rise of hyper-right neoliberalism is certainly nothing to celebrate, it does present an opportunity for breaking
with neoliberal hegemony. We have to proceed, as Gary Younge reminds us, with the realization that people "have not rejected the
chance of a better world. They have not yet been offered one."'
Mark Fisher, the author of Capitalist Realism, put it this way:
The long, dark night of the end of history has to be grasped as an enormous opportunity. The very oppressive pervasiveness
of capitalist realism means that even glimmers of alternative political and economic possibilities can have a disproportionately
great effect. The tiniest event can tear a hole in the grey curtain of reaction which has marked the horizons of possibility under
capitalist realism. From a situation in which nothing can happen, suddenly anything is possible again.4
I think that, for the first time in the history of U.S. capitalism, the vast majority of people might sense the lie of liberal,
capitalist democracy. They feel anxious, unfree, disaffected. Fantasies of the good life have been shattered beyond repair for most
people. Trump and this hopefully brief triumph of right neoliberalism will soon lay this bare for everyone to see. Now, with Trump,
it is absolutely clear: the rich rule the world; we are all disposable; this is no democracy. The question becomes: How will we show
up for history? Will there be new stories, ideas, visions, and fantasies to attach to? How can we productively and meaningful intervene
in the crisis of neoliberalism? How can we "tear a hole in the grey curtain" and open up better worlds? How can we put what we've
learned to use and begin to imagine and build a world beyond living in competition? I hope our critical journey through the neoliberal
conjuncture has enabled you to begin to answer these questions.
More specifically, in recent decades, especially since the end of the Cold War, our common-good sensibilities have been channeled
into neoliberal platforms for social change and privatized action, funneling our political energies into brand culture and marketized
struggles for equality (e.g., charter schools, NGOs and non-profits, neoliberal antiracism and feminism). As a result, despite our
collective anger and disaffected consent, we find ourselves stuck in capitalist realism with no real alternative. Like the neoliberal
care of the self, we are trapped in a privatized mode of politics that relies on cruel optimism; we are attached, it seems, to politics
that inspire and motivate us to action, while keeping us living in competition.
To disrupt the game, we need to construct common political horizons against neoliberal hegemony. We need to use our common stories
and common reason to build common movements against precarity -- for within neoliberalism, precarity is what ultimately has the potential
to thread all of our lives together. Put differently, the ultimate fault line in the neoliberal conjiuicture is the way it subjects
us all to precarity and the biopolitics of disposability, thereby creating conditions of possibility for new coalitions across race,
gender, citizenship, sexuality, and class. Recognizing this potential for coalition in the face of precarization is the most pressing
task facing those who are yearning for a new world. The question is: How do we get there? How do we realize these coalitional potentialities
and materialize common horizons?
Ultimately, mapping the neoliberal conjuncture through everyday life in enterprise culture has not only provided some direction
in terms of what we need; it has also cultivated concrete and practical intellectual resources for political interv ention and social
interconnection -- a critical toolbox for living in common. More specifically, this book has sought to provide resources for thinking
and acting against the four Ds: resources for engaging in counter-conduct, modes of living that refuse, on one hand, to conduct one's
life according to the norm of enterprise, and on the other, to relate to others through the norm of competition. Indeed, we need
new ways of relating, interacting, and living as friends, lovers, workers, vulnerable bodies, and democratic people if we are to
write new stories, invent new govemmentalities, and build coalitions for new worlds.
Against Disimagination: Educated Hope and Affirmative Speculation
We need to stop turning inward, retreating into ourselves, and taking personal responsibility for our lives (a task which is ultimately
impossible). Enough with the disimagination machine! Let's start looking outward, not inward -- to the broader structures that undergird
our lives. Of course, we need to take care of ourselves; we must survive. But I firmly believe that we can do this in ways both big
and small, that transform neoliberal culture and its status-quo stories.
Here's the thing I tell my students all the time. You cannot escape neoliberalism. It is the air we breathe, the water in which
we swim. No job, practice of social activism, program of self-care, or relationship will be totally free from neoliberal impingements
and logics. There is no pure "outside" to get to or work from -- that's just the nature of the neoliberalism's totalizing cultural
power. But let's not forget that neoliberalism's totalizing cultural power is also a source of weakness. Potential for resistance
is everywhere, scattered throughout our everyday lives in enterprise culture. Our critical toolbox can help us identify these potentialities
and navigate and engage our conjuncture in ways that tear open up those new worlds we desire.
In other words, our critical perspective can help us move through the world with what Henry Giroux calls educated hope. Educated
hope means holding in tension the material realities of power and the contingency of history. This orientation of educated hope knows
very well what we're up against. However, in the face of seemingly totalizing power, it also knows that neoliberalism can never become
total because the future is open. Educated hope is what allows us to see the fault lines, fissures, and potentialities of the present
and emboldens us to think and work from that sliver of social space where we do have political agency and freedom to construct a
new world. Educated hope is what undoes the power of capitalist realism. It enables affirmative speculation (such as discussed in
Chapter 5), which does not try to hold the future to neoliberal horizons (that's cruel optimism!), but instead to affirm our commonalities
and the potentialities for the new worlds they signal. Affirmative speculation demands a different sort of risk calculation and management.
It senses how little we have to lose and how much we have to gain from knocking the hustle of our lives.
Against De-democratization: Organizing and Collective Coverning
We can think of educated hope and affirmative speculation as practices of what Wendy Brown calls "bare democracy" -- the basic
idea that ordinary' people like you and me should govern our lives in common, that we should critique and try to change our world,
especially the exploitative and oppressive structures of power that maintain social hierarchies and diminish lives. Neoliberal culture
works to stomp out capacities for bare democracy by transforming democratic desires and feelings into meritocratic desires and feelings.
In neoliberal culture, utopian sensibilities are directed away from the promise of collective utopian sensibilities are directed
away from the promise of collective governing to competing for equality.
We have to get back that democractic feeling! As Jeremy Gilbert taught us, disaffected consent is a post-democratic orientation.
We don't like our world, but we don't think we can do anything about it. So, how do we get back that democratic feeling? How do we
transform our disaffected consent into something new? As I suggested in the last chapter, we organize. Organizing is simply about
people coming together around a common horizon and working collectively to materialize it. In this way, organizing is based on the
idea of radical democracy, not liberal democracy. While the latter is based on formal and abstract rights guaranteed by the state,
radical democracy insists that people should directly make the decisions that impact their lives, security, and well-being. Radical
democracy is a practice of collective governing: it is about us hashing out, together in communities, what matters, and working in
common to build a world based on these new sensibilities.
The work of organizing is messy, often unsatisfying, and sometimes even scary. Organizing based on affirmative speculation and
coalition-building, furthermore, will have to be experimental and uncertain. As Lauren Berlant suggests, it means "embracing the
discomfort of affective experience in a truly open social life that no
one has ever experienced." Organizing through and for the common "requires more adaptable infrastructures. Keep forcing the existing
infrastructures to do what they don't know how to do. Make new ways to be local together, where local doesn't require a physical
neighborhood." 5 What Berlant is saying is that the work of bare democracy requires unlearning, and detaching from, our
current stories and infrastructures in order to see and make things work differently. Organizing for a new world is not easy -- and
there are no guarantees -- but it is the only way out of capitalist realism.
Getting back democratic feeling will at once require and help us lo move beyond the biopolitics of disposability and entrenched
systems of inequality. On one hand, organizing will never be enough if it is not animated by bare democracy, a sensibility that each
of us is equally important when it comes to the project of determining our lives in common. Our bodies, our hurts, our dreams, and
our desires matter regardless of our race, gender, sexuality, or citizenship, and regardless of how r much capital (economic,
social, or cultural) we have. Simply put, in a radical democracy, no one is disposable. This bare-democratic sense of equality must
be foundational to organizing and coalition-building. Otherwise, we will always and inevitably fall back into a world of inequality.
On the other hand, organizing and collective governing will deepen and enhance our sensibilities and capacities for radical equality.
In this context, the kind of self-enclosed individualism that empowers and underwrites the biopolitics of disposability melts away,
as we realize the interconnectedness of our lives and just how amazing it feels to
fail, we affirm our capacities for freedom, political intervention, social interconnection, and collective social doing.
Against Dispossession: Shared Security and Common Wealth
Thinking and acting against the biopolitics of disposability goes hand-in-hand with thinking and acting against dispossession.
Ultimately, when we really understand and feel ourselves in relationships of interconnection with others, we want for them as we
want for ourselves. Our lives and sensibilities of what is good and just are rooted in radical equality, not possessive or self-appreciating
individualism. Because we desire social security and protection, we also know others desire and deserve the same.
However, to really think and act against dispossession means not only advocating for shared security and social protection, but
also for a new society that is built on the egalitarian production and distribution of social wealth that we all produce. In this
sense, we can take Marx's critique of capitalism -- that wealth is produced collectively but appropriated individually -- to heart.
Capitalism was built on the idea that one class -- the owners of the means of production -- could exploit and profit from the collective
labors of everyone else (those who do not own and thus have to work), albeit in very different ways depending on race, gender, or
citizenship. This meant that, for workers of all stripes, their lives existed not for themselves, but for others (the appropriating
class), and that regardless of what we own as consumers, we are not really free or equal in that bare-democratic sense of the word.
If we want to be really free, we need to construct new material and affective social infrastructures for our common wealth. In
these new infrastructures, wealth must not be reduced to economic value; it must be rooted in social value. Here, the production
of wealth does not exist as a separate sphere from the reproduction of our lives. In other words, new infrastructures, based on the
idea of common wealth, will not be set up to exploit our labor, dispossess our communities, or to divide our lives. Rather, they
will work to provide collective social resources and care so that we may all be free to pursue happiness, create beautiful and/or
useful things, and to realize our potential within a social world of living in common. Crucially, to create the conditions for these
new, democratic forms of freedom rooted in radical equality, we need to find ways to refuse and exit the financial networks of Empire
and the dispossessions of creditocracy, building new systems that invite everyone to participate in the ongoing production of new
worlds and the sharing of the wealth that we produce in common.
It's not up to me to tell you exactly where to look, but I assure you that potentialities for these new worlds are everywhere
around you.
"... The roots of Russophobia's emotional appeal to the left seem clear: It comes as a huge mental relief to the ultrasensitive liberal mind to be able to hate an outside group with impunity, and even to appear virtuous in the process . Of course, the object of that animus is a Christian and European nation that stubbornly refuses to be postmodernized, or become gripped by self-hate and morbid introspection; a nation not ashamed of its past and unwilling to surrender its future to alien multitudes; a nation where nobody obsesses over transgender bathrooms, microaggressions, and other "issues" indicative of a society's moral and intellectual decrepitude. ..."
"... The liberals' ideological and emotional Russophobia has blended seamlessly with the bread-and-butter hostility to Russia shared by Deep State operatives in the intelligence and national-security apparatus, in the military-industrial complex, and in the congressional duopoly. ..."
"... The late Anna Politkovskaya thus wrote in the Los Angeles Times 12 years ago that "it is common knowledge that the Russian people are irrational by nature." It is impossible to imagine a mainstream publication publishing a similar statement about Jews or Muslims. ..."
"... Cheesepopes be gaslighting ..."
"... Nothing give a NYC Wall Street banker more of a wet dream than the possibility of war between the goy. Oil, white slaves, truly a banker's dream come true. ..."
by Srdja Trifkovic via The Strategic Culture Foundation,
There is a paranoid, hysterical quality to the public discourse on Russia and all things Russian
in today's America. The corporate media machine and its Deep State handlers have abdicated reason
and common decency in favor of raw hate and fear-mongering. We have not seen anything like it before,
even in the darkest days of the Cold War.
The roots of Russophobia's emotional appeal to the left seem clear: It comes as a huge mental
relief to the ultrasensitive liberal mind to be able to hate an outside group with impunity, and
even to appear virtuous in the process . Of course, the object of that animus is a Christian and
European nation that stubbornly refuses to be postmodernized, or become gripped by self-hate and
morbid introspection; a nation not ashamed of its past and unwilling to surrender its future to alien
multitudes; a nation where nobody obsesses over transgender bathrooms, microaggressions, and other
"issues" indicative of a society's moral and intellectual decrepitude.
The liberals' ideological and emotional Russophobia has blended seamlessly with the bread-and-butter
hostility to Russia shared by Deep State operatives in the intelligence and national-security apparatus,
in the military-industrial complex, and in the congressional duopoly. The result is a surreal narrative
that mixes supposedly unprovoked "Russian aggression" in Ukraine, hostile intent in the Baltics,
serial war crimes in Syria, political destabilization in Western Europe, and gross interference in
America's "democratic process". The result is an altogether fictitious "existential threat," which
has made President Trump's intended détente with Moscow impossible. He may have been serious about
turning over a new leaf, but the Deep State counterpressure proved just too great. A solid rejection
front emerged, left and right, conservative and liberal, which extends even into his own team and
finally inhibited him from making moves that could have appeared too friendly to Putin.
The Russophobes' narrative is unrelated to Russia's actual policies. It reflects a deep odium
of the elite class toward Russia-as-such. That animosity has been developing in its current form
since roughly the time of the Crimean War, when in his Letters From Russia the Marquis de Custine
said that the country's "veneer of European civilization was too thin to be credible."
"No human beings, black, yellow or white, could be quite as untruthful, as insincere, as arrogant-in
short, as untrustworthy in every way-as the Russians," President Theodore Roosevelt wrote in 1905.
John Maynard Keynes, after a trip to the Soviet Union in 1925, wondered whether the "mood of oppression"
might be "the fruit of some beastliness in the Russian nature." J. Robert Oppenheimer opined in 1951
that, in Russia, "We are coping with a barbarous, backward people." More recently, Sen. John McCain
declared that "Russia is a gas station masquerading as a country." "Russia is an anti-Western power
with a different, darker vision of global politics," Slate wrote in early 2014, even before the Ukrainian
crisis reached its climax.
This narrative has two key pillars. In terms of geopolitics, we see the striving of maritime empires-Britain
before World War II, and the United States after - to "contain" and if possible control the Eurasian
heartland, the core of which is of course Russia. Equally important is the already noted cultural
antipathy, the desire not merely to influence Russian policies and behavior but to effect an irreversible
transformation of Russia's identity. Some of the most viscerally Russophobic stereotypes come from
Russia herself, from those members of Moscow's "intelligentsia" who feel more at home in New York
or London than anywhere in their own country. The late Anna Politkovskaya thus wrote in the Los Angeles
Times 12 years ago that "it is common knowledge that the Russian people are irrational by nature."
It is impossible to imagine a mainstream publication publishing a similar statement about Jews or
Muslims.
The Russophobic frenzy comes at a cost. It further devalues the quality of public discourse on
world affairs in the United States, which is already dismally low. It has already undermined the
prospects for a mutually beneficial new chapter in U.S.-Russian relations, based on a realist assessment
that those two powers have no "existential" differences - and share many actual and potential commonalities.
It perpetrates the arrogant delusion that there is a superior, "Western" model of social and cultural
thought and action that can and should be imposed everywhere, but especially in Russia.
Saddest of all, Russophobic mania prolongs the European civil war that exploded in July 1914,
continued in 1939, and has never properly ended - not even with the fall of the Berlin Wall. It would
be in the American interest, as well as Russia's and Europe's, for that conflict to end, so that
the existential challenge common to all- that of resurgent jihad and Europe's demographic crisis
- can be properly addressed.
Nothing give a NYC Wall Street banker more of a wet dream than the possibility of war between
the goy. Oil, white slaves, truly a banker's dream come true.
..it seems like our foreign policy is like an angry poor, innocent "motorist", whacked out
on amphetamines, speeding over 100 mph and destined to drown in his liberal negro lottery swimming
pool.
The United States is closely watching a recent increase in piracy off the coast of Somalia,
a senior U.S. military official said on Sunday as Defense Secretary Jim Mattis visited an important
military base in Djibouti.
If I ignore your bullshit "but at the maximum..." implication:
So what do you conclude from that. Is it a bad thing to have rivals? Should we strive to turn
every remaining rival into a vassal? Is there a limit on methods allowed toward a rival?
I'll give you a green arrow to make up for the narrow-mindedness of the simpletons who all
gave you red arrows.
We don't need a war with Russia, and the US won't instigate one, either. The juice wouldn't
be worth the squeeze.
With all of that being said, Russia is a rival to the US in other parts of the world. The US
isn't the only country with a desire for influence around the world.
As much as there is a "Russo-phobia" being perpetuated in the US, you can bet a buck that there
is an "Ameri-phobia" being perpetuated out there.
The big difference is that in Russia, they don't have message boards full of people sh*tting
on their own country.
Well, that is kind of how major powers compete for influence. It takes two to tango. We can't
exactly engage in war by proxy if the Russians aren't involved in it, too.
I hate to say it but the so called "elites", in charge of our beloved deep state controlling
everything, are quite stupid -- This continuous news hysteria, against whatever subject du jour
our intelligentsia decides to float publicly, proves beyond any reasonable doubt that said "elites"
suffer from a combination of low IQ, partial education (at best !), and high self-delusion...
We might get to witness nuclear war, just because our "elites" are too idiotic to realize what
a nuclear war really is...
They stick their hook nose into everything because they want to own the whole 4th rock from
the sun. These people are ill, very ill and as I read these comments it's obvious that some just
don't get it yet.
All of this B.S. Russophobia evolved from a convenient distraction from the CONTENT of the
leaked DNC emails, and has been amplified because of the symbiosis with Neoconservative/Globalist
strategies.
What amazes me is how well the propaganda seems to be working. There's a bunch of old farts
(not that I'm really young!) at the gym every morning talking about how awesome it is that we
bombed Syria and it'll show that bastard Putin we're tough and mean business. "America, Fuck yeh!"
I wanted to ask them if they were mentally defective or just fucking retards...
Pretty much. Society has opted to run on emotion rather than fact, emotional manipulation being
the key part of the most popular forms of entertainment. Sadly this bleeds into our dealings with
each other which are increasingly emotional or insulting. Most of human behaviour and attitudes
are due to fear, particularly the egoic fear of inadequacy. As a control mechanism, fear is a
formidable tool. But fear is also a choice.
The Strategic Culture Foundation who published this piece has an evil agenda, and they are
not even friends of Putin. They are very subtle warmongers. You will see when the time comes.
Putin was duped by Iran in Syria, Iran got Syria, not Putin. Trump and Saudi can give Russia
what it needs to survive, if Putin stops being duped by deceptive hegemonial Iran.
This reminds me of when the ZerroHedge owners mentioned that Bloomberg article several months
back that involved an interview of a former Zero Hedge writer blowing the lid off this place.
He mentioned how pro-Russia the ZH owners were. This article suggests that he may have been right
after all!
Yea, we shouldn't be afraid of a country with nukes, that invades it's neigbours, has an uber
crony economy the size of Italy's, dominated by oligarchs in mining and the obligation to keep
friendly with the Kremlin or risk being put in jail and have your assets taken away on trumped
up charges. The country that murders it's opponents and critics with nasty stuff like Polonium,
even abroad, that interferes in others elections with misinformation campaigns and troll factories,
that is on the side of the ayatolla's of Iran and the mass murderer in Syria, helping him by bombing
hospitals and refugees, only to be "recognized as a player again on the world stage" A coutry
of alcoholics with one of the lowest life expectancy in the developed world. Really, a model state.
As Paul Graig Roberts, the inhouse idiot here noted, Putin for the Nobel peace price!
Wikileaks has disclosed the tactic to blame Russia for the election results, Trump's collusion,
etc. back to spring of 2016 --- I remember when they started making those "Russia" comments. They
wanted to start the thoughts about him/his staff being in collusion with the Russians. That was
to hopefully make more decide not to vote for him and in case he won, use it to prove election
fraud, treason and somehow impeach him.
Those who know about the Globalists NWO agenda, Deep State, Neocons, etc. realize we've all
been lied to about Russia (among all the other lies) since the end of the Cold War. for "their"
agenda purposes - need for continuous wars for MIC, etc. also. Putin is not as portrayed at all.
Russia is not the "big bad Commie" beast that wants to take over the world as they want us to
believe to "justify" another war.
Putin is an Eastern Orthodox Chrsitian who protects Christians, hates and fights terrorists
and Globalism. He is not a Globalist. We have those goals in common and Pres. Trump and Putin
would be a fantastic duo that when united, terrorism and Globalism would finally be dealt death
blows,
Our enemies within know that and therefore they're trying to do everything they can to hurt
that relationship and not let it happen because it would mean finally - the end of their evil
world order plan.
Amount of pressure applied commensurate to strength of a country in question. For some of them
all it takes is a stern talk from the ambassador, Russia right now is safely beyond the US ability
to apply the required pressure, including the threat of Nuclear War. What is happening instead
is that world being interconnected the way it is, applying pressure at hardened point that is
Russia is also increasing pressure at other weaker points as well, pretty much all over the world.
EU and NATO are posturing against Russia in display of lunacy that is symptomatic for the West,
it seems that God is taking away humans ability to reason. Day 1, Russia announces indefinite
cuts of gas supplies to Europe, stocks crater, world economy craters, Russia and China who were
hoarding gold watch the West collapse like a house of cards while passing the popcorn. The End.
Afghanistan is about to go full retard again, as taliban cuts ussa out of heroin billions---
as our afghan troops turn their weapons on their masters[1]
The Jewish media has been obsessed with this business about Russia allegedly influencing the
recent 2016 U.S. election. This obsession has concealed the real problem with foreign influence
over the American electoral system. It isn't Russian influence that's the problem, it is Israeli
influence that's the problem.
Below is a list of stories showing how Israelis or Jews substantively connected to Israel have
been subverting the American electoral process.
You know we will have turned the corner when Donald Trump gives the American people a "Fireside
Chat" and tells the public the real reasons the media spearheads a constant barrage of hate filled
anti-Russian LYING PROPAGANDA filled rhetoric... BECAUSE
A) THEY ARE THE WORLDS LEADER IN OIL PRODUCTION B) HAVE NO DEBT C) HAVE THERE OWN BALANCE OF
PAYMENT CREDIT SYSTEM MIR THAT WILL REPLACE THE WESTERN CENTRAL BANK(S) SYSTEM "SWIFT"
And after he delivers that truthful message he will NEVER BE ALLOWED TO EVER AGAIN... He will
probably be shot like HOWARD BEALE in the movie NETWORK... Or WWWIII will be LAUNCHED!!!
"... I wanted to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed a political agenda. ..."
"... I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared by different circles within the American political class and promoted through programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies, activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia, but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining the nation's political reputation. ..."
"... To these individuals, Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism in the former Soviet region. ..."
"... Anti-American attitudes are strongly present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse. ..."
"... The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies. The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves, and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective. Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power. In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international politics. ..."
"... According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this "New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a threat from arising in the first place."4 ..."
"... Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S. interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned, no other choice was available. ..."
"... This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure."6 ..."
"... Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity ..."
"... The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist, autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15 ..."
"... During the period of 2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with the Kremlin. ..."
"... Cheney could not tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91 ..."
"... In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important attributes of sovereign statehood. ..."
"... In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces, the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy. ..."
"... The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle. ..."
"... Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114 ..."
It was during the spring of 2006 that I began this project. I wanted
to investigate whether the growing volume of criticism toward Russia, sometimes
by people who could hardly claim to be knowledgeable about the country, concealed
a political agenda.
As I researched the subject, I discovered evidence of Russophobia shared
by different circles within the American political class and promoted through
programs and conferences at various think tanks, congressional testimonies,
activities of NGOs, and the media. Russophobia is not merely a critique of Russia,
but a critique beyond any sense of proportion, waged with the purpose of undermining
the nation's political reputation.
... ... ....
Although a critical analysis of Russia and its political system is entirely
legitimate, the issue is the balance of such analysis. Russia's role in the
world is growing, yet many U.S. politicians feel that Russia doesn't matter
in the global arena. Preoccupied with international issues, such as Iraq and
Afghanistan, they find it difficult to accept that they now have to nego- tiate
and coordinate their international policies with a nation that only yesterday
seemed so weak, introspective, and dependent on the West. To these individuals,
Russophobia is merely a means to pressure the Kremlin into submitting to the
United States in the execution of its grand plans to control the world's most
precious resources and geostrategic sites. In the meantime, Russia has grown
increasingly resentful, and the war in the Caucasus in August 2008 has demonstrated
that Russia is prepared to act unilaterally to stop what it views as US unilateralism
in the former Soviet region.
And some in Moscow are tempted to provoke a much greater confrontation with
Western states. The attitude of ignorance and self-righteousness toward Russia
tells us volumes about the United States' lack of preparation for the twenty-first
century's central challenges that include political instability, weapons proliferation,
and energy insecurity. Despite the dislike of Russia by a considerable number
of American elites, this attitude is far from universally shared. Many Americans
understand that Russia has gone a long way from communism and that the overwhelming
support for Putin's policies at home cannot be adequately explained by high
oil prices and the Kremlin's manipulation of the public-despite the frequent
assertions of Russophobic observers.
Balanced analysts are also aware that many Russian problems are typical difficulties
that nations encounter with state-building, and should not be presented as indicative
of Russia's "inherent drive" to autocracy or empire. As the United States and
Russia move further to the twenty-first century, it will be increasingly important
to redefine the relationship between the two nations in a mutually enriching
way.
Political and cultural phobias are, of course, not limited to those of an
anti-Russian nature. For instance, Russia has its share of America-phobia --
a phenomenon that I have partly researched in my book Whose World Order (Notre
Dame, 2004) and in several articles. Anti-American attitudes are strongly
present in Russian media and cultural products, as a response to the US policies
of nuclear, energy, and military supremacy in the world. Extreme hegemonic policies
tend to provoke an extreme response, and Russian nationalist movements and often
commentators react harshly to what they view as unilateral encroachment on Russia's
political system and foreign policy interests. Russia's reactions to these policies
by the United States are highly negative and frequently inadequate, but hardly
more extreme than the American hegemonic and imperial discourse.
The Anti-Russian Lobby
When the facile optimism was disappointed, Western euphoria faded, and
Russophobia returned ... The new Russophobia was expressed not by the
governments, but in the statements of out-of-office politicians, the
publications of academic experts, the sensational writings of jour-
nalists, and the products of the entertainment industry. (Rodric Braithwaite,
Across the Moscow River, 2002)1
....
Russophobia is not a myth, not an invention of the Red-Brovvns, but
a real phenomenon of political thought in the main political think tanks
in the West . .. [T]he Yeltsin-Kozyrev's pro-U.S. "giveaway game" was
approved across the ocean. There is reason to say that the period in
ques- tion left the West with the illusion that Russia's role was to
serve Washington's interests and that it would remain such in the future.
(Sergei Mikoyati, International Affairs /October 2006j)2
This chapter formulates a theory of Russophobia and the anti-Russian lobby's
influence on the U.S. Russia policy. 1 discuss the Lobby's objec- tives, its
tactics to achieve them, the history of its formation and rise to prominence,
and the conditions that preserved its influence in the after- math of 9/11.1
argue that Russophobia has been important to American hegemonic elites in pressuring
Russia for economic and political conces- sions in the post-Cold War era.
1. Goals and Means
Objectives
The central objective of the Lobby has been to preserve and strengthen
America's power in the post-Cold War world through imperial or hegemonic policies.
The Lobby has viewed Russia with its formidable nuclear power, energy reserves,
and important geostrategic location as a major obstacle in achieving this objective.
Even during the 1990s, when Russia looked more like a failing state3 than one
capable of projecting power, some members of the American political class were
worried about the future revival of the Eurasian giant as a revisionist power.
In their percep- tion, it was essential to keep Russia in a state of military
and economic weakness-not so much out of emotional hatred for the Russian people
and their culture, but to preserve American security and promote its val- ues
across the world. To many within the Lobby, Russophobia became a useful device
for exerting pressures on Russia and controlling its policies. Although to some
the idea of undermining and, possibly, dismembering Russia was personal, to
others it was a necessity of power dictated by the realities of international
politics.
According to this dominant vision, there was simply no place in this
"New American Century" for power competitors, and America was destined eventually
to assume control over potentially threatening military capabilities and energy
reserves of others. As the two founders of the Project for the New' American
Century (PNAC), William Kristol and Robert Kagan, asserted when referring to
the large military forces of Russia and China, "American statesmen today ought
to recognize that their charge is not to await the arrival of the next great
threat, but rather to shape the international environment to prevent such a
threat from arising in the first place."4
Russia was either to agree to assist the United States in preserving
its world-power status or be forced to agree. It had to either follow the U.S.
interpretation of world affairs and develop a political and economic system
sufficiently open to American influences or live as a pariah state, smeared
by accusations of pernicious behavior, and in constant fear for its survival
in the America-centered world. As far as the U.S. hegemonic elites were concerned,
no other choice was available.
This hegemonic mood was largely consistent with mainstream ideas within
the American establishment immediately following the end of the Cold War. For
example, 1989 saw the unification of Germany and the further meltdown of the
Soviet Union, which some characterized as "the best period of U.S. foreign policy
ever."5 President Jimmy Carter's former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski
envisioned the upcoming victory of the West by celebrating the Soviet Union's
"grand failure."6
In his view, the Soviet "totalitarian" state was incapable of reform. Communism's
decline was therefore irreversible and inevitable. It would have made the system's
"practice and its dogma largely irrelevant to the human conditions," and communism
would be remembered as the twentieth century's "political and intellectual aberration."7
Other com- mentators argued the case for a global spread of Western values.
In 1990 Francis Fukuyama first formulated his triumphalist "end of history"
thesis, arguing a global ascendancy of the Western-style market democracy.®
... ... ...
Marc Plattner declared the emergence of a "world with one dominant principle
of legitimacy, democracy."9 When the Soviet system had indeed disintegrated,
the leading establishment journal Foreign Affairs pronounced that "the Soviet
system collapsed because of what it was, or more exactly, because of what it
was not. The West 'won' because of what the democracies were-because they were
free, prosperous and successful, because they did justice, or convincingly tried
to do so."10 Still others, such as Charles Krauthammer, went as far as to
proclaim the arrival of the United States' "unipolar moment," a period in which
only one super- power, the United States, would stand above the rest of the
world in its military, economic, and ideological capacity.11
In this context of U.S. triumphalism, at least some Russophobes expected
Russia to follow the American agenda. Still, they were worried that Russia may
still have surprises to offer and would recover as an enemy.12
Soon after the Soviet disintegration, Russia indeed surprised many, although
not quite in the sense of presenting a power challenge to the United States.
Rather, the surprise was the unexpectedly high degree of corruption, social
and economic decay, and the rapid disappointment of pro-Western reforms inside
Russia. By late 1992, the domestic economic situation was much worsened, as
the failure of Western-style shock ther- apy reform put most of the population
on the verge of poverty. Russia was preoccupied not with the projection of power
but with survival, as poverty, crime, and corruption degraded it from the status
of the indus- trialized country it once was. In the meantime, the economy was
largely controlled by and divided among former high-ranking party and state
officials and their associates. The so-called oligarchs, or a group of extremely
wealthy individuals, played the role of the new post-Soviet nomenklatura; they
influenced many key decisions of the state and suc- cessfully blocked the development
of small- and medium-sized business in the country.13 Under these conditions,
the Russophobes warned that the conditions in Russia may soon be ripe for the
rise of an anti-Western nationalist regime and that Russia was not fit for any
partnership with the United States.14
The mid-1990s saw the emergence of post-Soviet Russophobia. The Lobby's
ideology was not principally new, as it still contained the three central myths
of Sovietophobia left over from the Cold War era: Russia is inherently imperialist,
autocratic, and anti-Western. This ideology now had to be modified to the new
conditions and promoted politically, which required a tightening of the Lobby's
unity, winning new allies within the establishment, and gaining public support.15
... ... ...
The impact of structural and institutional factors is further reinforced
by policy factors, such as the divide within the policy community and the lack
of presidential leadership. Not infrequently, politicians tend to defend their
personal and corporate interests, and lobbying makes a difference in the absence
of firm policy commitments.
Experts recognize that the community of Russia watchers is split and that
the split, which goes all the way to the White House, has been responsible for
the absence of a coherent policy toward the country. During the period of
2003-2008, Vice President Richard Dick Cheney formed a cohesive and bipartisan
group of Russia critics, who pushed for a more confrontational approach with
the Kremlin. The brain behind the invasion of Iraq, Cheney could not
tolerate opposition to what he saw as a critical step in establishing worldwide
US hegemony. He was also harboring the idea of controlling Russia's energy reserves.91
Since November 2004, when the administration launched a review of its policy
on Russia,92 Cheney became a critically important voice in whom the Lobby found
its advocate. Secretaries of State Condoleezza Rice and, until November 2004,
Colin Powell opposed the vice president's approach, arguing for a softer and
more accommodating style in relations with Moscow.
President Bush generally sided with Rice and Powell, but he proved unable
to form a consistent Russia policy. Because of America's involvement in the
Middle East, Bush failed to provide the leadership committed to devising mutually
acceptable rules in relations with Russia that could have prevented the deterioration
in their relationship. Since the end of 2003, he also became doubtful about
the direction of Russia's domestic transformation.93 As a result, the promising
post-9/11 cooperation never materialized. The new cold war and the American
Sense of History
It's time we start thinking of Vladimir Putin's Russia as an enemy of the
United States. (Bret Stephens, "Russia: The Enemy," The Wall Street Journal,
November 28, 2006)
If today's reality of Russian politics continues ... then there is the real
risk that Russia's leadership will be seen, externally and internally, as illegitimate.
(John Edwards and Jack Kemp, "We Need to Be Tough with Russia," International
Herald Tribune, July 12, 2006)
On Iran, Kosovo, U.S. missile defense, Iraq, the Caucasus and Caspian basin,
Ukraine-the list goes on-Russia puts itself in conflict with the U.S. and its
allies . . . here are worse models than the united Western stand that won the
Cold War the first time around.
("Putin Institutionalized," The Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2007) In
order to derail the U.S.-Russia partnership, the Lobby has sought to revive
the image of Russias as an enemy of the United States. The Russophobic groups
have exploited important differences between the two countries' historical self-perceptions,
presenting those differences as incompatible.
1. Contested History
Two versions of history
The story of the Cold War as told from the U.S. perspective is about American
ideas of Western-style democracy as rescued from the Soviet threat of totalitarian
communism. Although scholars and politicians disagreed over the methods of responding
to the Soviet threat, they rarely questioned their underlying assumptions about
history and freedom.' It therefore should not come as surprise that many in
the United States have interpreted the end of the Cold War as a victory of the
Western freedom narrative. Celebrating the Soviet Union's "grand failure"-as
Zbigniew Brzezinski put it2-the American discourse assumed that from now on
there would be little resistance to freedom's worldwide progression. When Francis
Fukuyama offered his bold summary of these optimistic feelings and asserted
in a famous passage that "what we may be witnessing is not just the end of the
Cold War... but the end of history as such,"3 he meant to convey the disappearance
of an alternative to the familiar idea of free- dom, or "the universalization
of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."4
In Russia, however, the Cold War story has been mainly about sovereignty
and independence, rather than Western-style liberalism. To many Russians it
is a story of freedom from colonization by the West and of preserving important
attributes of sovereign statehood.
In a world where neocolonialism and cultural imperialism are potent forces,
the idea of freedom as independence continues to have strong international appeal
and remains a powerful alternative to the notion of liberal democracy.
Russians formulated the narrative of independence centuries ago, as they successfully
withstood external invasions from Napoleon to Hitler. The defeat of the Nazi
regime was important to the Soviets because it legitimized their claims to continue
with the tradition of freedom as independence.
The West's unwillingness to recognize the importance of this legitimizing
myth in the role of communist ideology has served as a key reason for the Cold
War.5 Like their Western counterparts, the Soviets were debating over methods
but not the larger assumptions that defined their struggle.
This helps to understand why Russians could never agree with the Western
interpretation of the end of the Cold War. What they find missing from the U.S.
narrative is the tribute to Russia's ability to defend its freedom from expansionist
ambitions of larger powers. The Cold War too is viewed by many Russians as a
necessarily defensive response to the West's policies, and it is important that
even while occupying Eastern Europe, the Soviets never celebrated the occupation,
emphasizing instead the war vic- tory.6 The Russians officially admitted "moral
responsibility" and apolo- gized for the Soviet invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia.7
They may be prepared to fully recognize the postwar occupation of Eastern Europe,
but only in the context of the two sides' responsibility for the Cold War. Russians
also find it offensive that Western VE Day celebrations ignore the crucial contribution
of Soviet troops, even though none of the Allies, as one historian put it, "paid
dearer than the Soviet Union for the victory. Forty Private Ivans fell in battle
to every Private Ryan."8 Victory over Nazi Germany constitutes, as another Russian
wrote, "the only undisputable foundation of the national myth."9
If the two sides are to build foundations for a future partnership, the two
historical narratives must be bridged. First, it is important to recognize the
difficulty of negotiating a common meaning of freedom and accept that the idea
of freedom may vary greatly across nations. The urge for freedom may be universal,
but its social content is a specific product of national his- tories and local
circumstances. For instance, the American vision of democracy initially downplayed
the role of elections and emphasized selection by merit or meritocracy. Under
the influence of the Great Depression, the notion of democracy incorporated
a strong egalitarian and poverty-fighting component, and it was not until the
Cold War- and not without its influence-that democracy has become associated
with elections and pluralistic institutions.10 Second, it is essential to acknowledge
the two nations' mutual respon- sibility for the misunderstanding that has resulted
in the Cold War. A historically sensitive account will recognize that both sides
were thinking in terms of expanding a territorial space to protect their visions
of security. While the Soviets wanted to create a buffer zone to prevent a future
attack from Germany, the Americans believed in reconstructing the European continent
in accordance with their ideas of security and democracy. A mutual mistrust
of the two countries' leaders exacerbated the situation, making it ever more
difficult to prevent a full-fledged political confronta- tion. Western leaders
had reason to be suspicious of Stalin, who, in his turn, was driven by the perception
of the West's greed and by betrayals from the dubious Treaty of Versailles to
the appeasement of Hitler in Munich. Arrangements for the post-World War II
world made by Britain, the USSR, and the United States proved insufficient to
address these deep-seated suspicions.
In addition, most Eastern European states created as a result of the Versailles
Treaty were neither free nor democratic and collaborated with Nazi Germany in
its racist and expansionist policies. The European post-World War 1 security
system was not working properly, and it was only a matter of time before it
would have to be transformed.
Third, if an agreeable historical account is to emerge, it would have to
accept that the end of the Cold War was a product of mutually beneficial a second
Cold War, "it also does not want the reversal of the U.S. geopolitical gains
that it made in the decade or so after the end of the Cold War."112 Another
expert asked, "What possible explanation is there for the fact that today-at
a moment when both the U.S. and Russia face the common enemy of Islamist terrorism-hard-liners
within the Bush administration, and especially in the office of Vice President
Dick Cheney, are arguing for a new tough line against Moscow along the lines
of a scaled-down Cold War?"113
Yet another analyst wrote "at the Cold War's end, the United States was
given one of the great opportunities of history: to embrace Russia, the largest
nation on earth, as partner, friend, ally. Our mutual interests meshed almost
perfectly. There was no ideological, territorial, his- toric or economic quarrel
between us, once communist ideology was interred. We blew it. We moved NATO
onto Russia's front porch, ignored her valid interests and concerns, and, with
our 'indispensable-nation' arrogance, treated her as a defeated power, as France
treated Weimar Germany after Versailles."114
This article is one year old but still looks like it was written yesterday...
Notable quotes:
"... Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's determination to ignore the evidence. ..."
"... "None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we have the real Intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump." ..."
"... Hersh's investigations have not only undermined evidence-free claims being promoted in the west to destabilise Assad's goverment but threatened a wider US policy seeking to "remake the Middle East". His work has challenged a political and corporate media consensus that portrays Russia's Vladimir Putin, Assad's main ally against the extremist Islamic forces fighting in Syria, as another dangerous monster the West needs to bring into line. ..."
"... For all these reasons, Hersh has found himself increasingly friendless. The New Yorker refused to publish his Syria investigations. Instead, he had to cross the Atlantic to find a home at the prestigious but far less prominent London Review of Books. ..."
On April 6, United States President Donald Trump authorized an early morning Tomahawk missile
strike on Shayrat Air Base in central Syria in retaliation for what he said was a deadly nerve
agent attack carried out by the Syrian government two days earlier in the rebel-held town of Khan
Sheikhoun.
Trump issued the order despite having been warned by the U.S. intelligence community that it
had found no evidence that the Syrians had used a chemical weapon.
The available intelligence made clear that the Syrians had targeted a jihadist meeting site
on April 4 using a Russian-supplied guided bomb equipped with conventional explosives.
Details of the attack, including information on its so-called high-value targets, had been
provided by the Russians days in advance to American and allied military officials in Doha, whose
mission is to coordinate all U.S., allied, Syrian and Russian Air Force operations in the region.
Some American military and intelligence officials were especially distressed by the president's
determination to ignore the evidence.
"None of this makes any sense," one officer told colleagues upon learning of the decision
to bomb. "We KNOW that there was no chemical attack ... the Russians are furious. Claiming we
have the real Intel and know the truth ... I guess it didn't matter whether we elected Clinton
or Trump."
Within hours of the April 4 bombing, the world's media was saturated with photographs and videos
from Khan Sheikhoun. Pictures of dead and dying victims, allegedly suffering from the symptoms
of nerve gas poisoning, were uploaded to social media by local activists, including the White
Helmets, a first responder group known for its close association with the Syrian opposition.
........................
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html
Hersh's investigations have not only undermined evidence-free claims being promoted in
the west to destabilise Assad's goverment but threatened a wider US policy seeking to "remake
the Middle East". His work has challenged a political and corporate media consensus that portrays
Russia's Vladimir Putin, Assad's main ally against the extremist Islamic forces fighting in Syria,
as another dangerous monster the West needs to bring into line.
For all these reasons, Hersh has found himself increasingly friendless. The New Yorker
refused to publish his Syria investigations. Instead, he had to cross the Atlantic to find a home
at the prestigious but far less prominent London Review of Books.
................
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/06/27/hershs-new-syria-revelations-buried-from-view/
White House Says It Will Fake "Chemical Weapon Attack" In Syria
The White House claims that the Syrian government is preparing "chemical weapon attacks". This
is clearly not the case. Syria is winning the war against the country. Any such attack would clearly
be to its disadvantage.
Seymour Hirsh has been forced to get his stories published in Europe because the US and UK media
have conspired to ban his exposes of their fake news.
Hirsh has been a thorn in the side of the national security state ever since his expose of
the My Lai massacre in 1969...and they're doing their best to shut him up.
Essentially CIA dictates the US foreign policy. The tail is wagging the dog. The current Russophobia hysteria mean
additional billions for CIA and FBI. As simple as that.
The article contain some important observation about self-sustaining nature of the US
militarism. It is able to create new threats and new insurgencies almost at will via CIA activities.
The key problem is that wars are highly profitable for important part of the ruling elite,
especially representing finance and military industrial complex. Also now part of the US
ruling elite now consists of "colonial administrators" which are directly interested in maintaining
and expanding the US empire. This is trap from which nation might not be able to escape.
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer, writes Nicolas J.S. Davies. ..."
"... Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the 1954 Geneva Accords and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die was cast. ..."
"... No U.S. president could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited from them. ..."
"... The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book Roots of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing," Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination." ..."
"... Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere, but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991. ..."
"... Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility as Johnson and Nixon did. ..."
"... Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only become more entrenched over time, as President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now, the lack of any actual military threat to the United States. ..."
"... U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book, The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World , was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role of the CIA in U.S. policy. ..."
"... The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such pretexts for war. ..."
"... The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years. ..."
"... Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment, ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out. ..."
"... Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq. ..."
"... But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty meant ..."
"... The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror," would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy objective. ..."
"... This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early 60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on a continental scale. ..."
"... China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every 10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show we mean business." ..."
"... As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash on others. ..."
"... But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike. ..."
"... Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist, beginning with his book on The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled The CIA as Organized Crime : How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy. ..."
"... In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to "make the economy scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. ..."
"... The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction. ..."
"... Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the most expensive military budge t of any president since World War Two. ..."
"... Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition, as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor. France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and destruction. ..."
The U.S. government may pretend to respect a "rules-based" global order, but the only rule Washington
seems to follow is "might makes right" -- and the CIA has long served as a chief instigator and enforcer,
writes Nicolas J.S. Davies.
As the recent PBS documentary on the American War in Vietnam acknowledged, few American officials
ever believed that the United States could win the war, neither those advising Johnson as he committed
hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, nor those advising Nixon as he escalated a brutal aerial bombardment
that had already killed millions of people.
As conversations tape-recorded in the White House reveal, and as other writers have documented,
the reasons for wading into the Big Muddy, as
Pete Seeger satirized it
, and then pushing on regardless, all came down to "credibility": the domestic political credibility
of the politicians involved and America's international credibility as a military power.
Once the CIA went to work in Vietnam to undermine the
1954 Geneva Accords
and the planned reunification of North and South through a free and fair election in 1956, the die
was cast. The CIA's support for the repressive
Diem regime and its successors
ensured an ever-escalating war, as the South rose in rebellion, supported by the North. No U.S. president
could extricate the U.S. from Vietnam without exposing the limits of what U.S. military force could
achieve, betraying widely held national myths and the powerful interests that sustained and profited
from them.
The critical "lesson of Vietnam" was summed up by Richard Barnet in his 1972 book
Roots
of War . "At the very moment that the number one nation has perfected the science of killing,"
Barnet wrote, "It has become an impractical means of political domination."
Even the senior officer corps of the U.S. military saw it that way, since many of them had survived
the horrors of Vietnam as junior officers. The CIA could still wreak havoc in Latin America and elsewhere,
but the full destructive force of the U.S. military was not unleashed again until the invasion of
Panama in 1989 and the First Gulf War in 1991.
Half a century after Vietnam, we have tragically come full circle. With the CIA's politicized
intelligence running wild in Washington and its covert operations spreading violence and chaos across
every continent, President Trump faces the same pressures to maintain his own and his country's credibility
as Johnson and Nixon did. His predictable response has been to escalate ongoing wars in Syria, Iraq,
Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia and West Africa, and to threaten new ones against North Korea, Iran and
Venezuela.
Trump is facing these questions, not just in one country, Vietnam, but in dozens of countries
across the world, and the interests perpetuating and fueling this cycle of crisis and war have only
become more entrenched over time, as
President Eisenhower warned that they would, despite the end of the Cold War and, until now,
the lack of any actual military threat to the United States.
Ironically but predictably, the U.S.'s aggressive and illegal war policy has finally provoked
a real military threat to the U.S., albeit one that has emerged only in response to U.S. war plans.
As I explained in a recent article , North Korea's discovery in 2016 of a U.S. plan to assassinate
its president, Kim Jong Un, and launch a Second Korean War has triggered a crash program to develop
long-range ballistic missiles that could give North Korea a viable nuclear deterrent and prevent
a U.S. attack. But the North Koreans will not feel safe from attack until their leaders and ours
are sure that their missiles can deliver a nuclear strike against the U.S. mainland.
The CIA's Pretexts for War
U.S. Air Force Colonel Fletcher Prouty was the chief of special operations for the Joint Chiefs
of Staff from 1955 to 1964, managing the global military support system for the CIA in Vietnam and
around the world. Fletcher Prouty's book,
The Secret Team: The CIA and its Allies in Control of the United States and the World ,
was suppressed when it was first published in 1973. Thousands of copies disappeared from bookstores
and libraries, and a mysterious Army Colonel bought the entire shipment of 3,500 copies the publisher
sent to Australia. But Prouty's book was republished in 2011, and it is a timely account of the role
of the CIA in U.S. policy.
Prouty surprisingly described the role of the CIA as a response by powerful people and interests
to the abolition of the U.S. Department of War and the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947.
Once the role of the U.S. military was redefined as one of defense, in line with the United Nations
Charter's
prohibition against the threat or use of military force in 1945 and similar moves by other military
powers, it would require some kind of crisis or threat to justify using military force in the future,
both legally and politically. The main purpose of the CIA, as Prouty saw it, is to create such
pretexts for war.
The CIA is a hybrid of an intelligence service that gathers and analyzes foreign intelligence
and a clandestine service that conducts covert operations. Both functions are essential to creating
pretexts for war, and that is what they have done for 70 years.
Prouty described how the CIA infiltrated the U.S. military, the State Department, the National
Security Council and other government institutions, covertly placing its officers in critical positions
to ensure that its plans are approved and that it has access to whatever forces, weapons, equipment,
ammunition and other resources it needs to carry them out.
Many retired intelligence officers, such as Ray McGovern and the members of Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), saw the merging of clandestine operations with intelligence analysis
in one agency as corrupting the objective analysis they tried to provide to policymakers. They formed
VIPS in 2003 in response to the fabrication of politicized intelligence that provided false pretexts
for the U.S. to invade and destroy Iraq.
CIA in Syria and Africa
But Fletcher Prouty was even more disturbed by the way that the CIA uses clandestine operations
to trigger coups, wars and chaos. The civil and proxy war in Syria is a perfect example of what Prouty
meant. In late 2011, after destroying Libya and aiding in the torture-murder of Muammar Gaddafi,
the CIA and its allies began
flying fighters
and weapons from Libya to Turkey and infiltrating them into Syria. Then, working with Saudi Arabia,
Qatar, Turkey, Croatia and other allies, this operation poured
thousands of tons of weapons across Syria's borders to ignite and fuel a full-scale civil war.
Once these covert operations were under way, they ran wild until they had unleashed a savage Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria (Jabhat al-Nusra, now rebranded as Jabhat Fateh al-Sham), spawned the even
more savage "Islamic State," triggered
the heaviest
and
probably the deadliest U.S. bombing campaign since Vietnam and drawn Russia, Iran, Turkey, Israel,
Jordan, Hezbollah, Kurdish militias and almost every state or armed group in the Middle East into
the chaos of Syria's civil war.
Meanwhile, as Al Qaeda and Islamic State have expanded their operations across Africa, the U.N.
has published a report titled
Journey to Extremismin Africa: Drivers, Incentives and the Tipping Point for Recruitment
, based on 500 interviews with African militants. This study has found that the kind of special operations
and training missions the CIA and AFRICOM are conducting and supporting in Africa are in fact the
critical "tipping point" that drives Africans to join militant groups like Al Qaeda, Al-Shabab and
Boko Haram.
The report found that government action, such as the killing or detention of friends or family,
was the "tipping point" that drove 71 percent of African militants interviewed to join armed groups,
and that this was a more important factor than religious ideology.
The conclusions of Journey to Extremism in Africa confirm the findings of other similar
studies. The Center for Civilians in Conflict interviewed 250 civilians who joined armed groups in
Bosnia, Somalia, Gaza and Libya for its 2015 study,
The People's Perspectives: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict . The study
found that the most common motivation for civilians to join armed groups was simply to protect themselves
or their families.
The role of U.S. "counterterrorism" operations in fueling armed resistance and terrorism, and
the absence of any plan to reduce the asymmetric violence unleashed by the "global war on terror,"
would be no surprise to Fletcher Prouty. As he explained, such clandestine operations always take
on a life of their own that is unrelated, and often counter-productive, to any rational U.S. policy
objective.
"The more intimate one becomes with this activity," Prouty wrote, "The more one begins to realize
that such operations are rarely, if ever, initiated from an intent to become involved in pursuit
of some national objective in the first place."
The U.S. justifies the deployment of 6,000 U.S. special forces and military trainers to
53 of the 54 countries in Africa as a response to terrorism. But the U.N.'s Journey to Extremism
in Africa study makes it clear that the U.S. militarization of Africa is in fact the "tipping
point" that is driving Africans across the continent to join armed resistance groups in the first
place.
This is a textbook CIA operation on the same model as Vietnam in the late 1950s and early
60s. The CIA uses U.S. special forces and training missions to launch covert and proxy military operations
that drive local populations into armed resistance groups, and then uses the presence of those armed
resistance groups to justify ever-escalating U.S. military involvement. This is Vietnam redux on
a continental scale.
Taking on China
What seems to really be driving the CIA's militarization of U.S. policy in Africa is China's growing
influence on the continent. As Steve Bannon put it in an
interview with the Economist in August, "Let's go screw up One Belt One Road."
China is already too big and powerful for the U.S. to apply what is known as the Ledeen doctrine
named for neoconservative theorist and intelligence operative Michael Ledeen who suggested that every
10 years or so, the United States "pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show we mean business."
China is too powerful and armed with nuclear weapons. So, in this case, the CIA's job would be
to spread violence and chaos to disrupt Chinese trade and investment, and to make African governments
increasingly dependent on U.S. military aid to fight the militant groups spawned and endlessly regenerated
by U.S.-led "counterterrorism" operations.
Neither Ledeen nor Bannon pretend that such policies are designed to build more prosperous or
viable societies in the Middle East or Africa, let alone to benefit their people. They both know
very well what Richard Barnet already understood 45 years ago, that America's unprecedented investment
in weapons, war and CIA covert operations are only good for one thing: to kill people and destroy
infrastructure, reducing cities to rubble, societies to chaos and the desperate survivors to poverty
and displacement.
As long as the CIA and the U.S. military keep plunging the scapegoats for our failed policies
into economic crisis, violence and chaos, the United States and the United Kingdom can remain the
safe havens of the world's wealth, islands of privilege and excess amidst the storms they unleash
on others.
But if that is the only "significant national objective" driving these policies, it is surely
about time for the 99 percent of Americans who reap no benefit from these murderous schemes to stop
the CIA and its allies before they completely wreck the already damaged and fragile world in which
we all must live, Americans and foreigners alike.
Douglas Valentine has probably studied the CIA in more depth than any other American journalist,
beginning with his book on
The Phoenix Program in Vietnam. He has written a new book titled
The CIA as Organized Crime: How Illegal Operations Corrupt America and the World, in which he brings Fletcher Prouty's
analysis right up to the present day, describing the CIA's role in our current wars and the many
ways it infiltrates, manipulates and controls U.S. policy.
The Three Scapegoats
In
Trump's speech to the U.N. General Assembly, he named North Korea, Iran and Venezuela as his
prime targets for destabilization, economic warfare and, ultimately, the overthrow of their governments,
whether by coup d'etat or the mass destruction of their civilian population and infrastructure.
But Trump's choice of scapegoats for America's failures was obviously not based on a rational reassessment
of foreign policy priorities by the new administration. It was only a tired rehashing of the CIA's
unfinished business with two-thirds of Bush's "axis of evil" and Bush White House official
Elliott Abrams'
failed 2002 coup in Caracas, now laced with explicit and illegal threats of aggression.
How Trump and the CIA plan to sacrifice their three scapegoats for America's failures remains
to be seen. This is not 2001, when the world stood silent at the U.S. bombardment and invasion of
Afghanistan after September 11th. It is more like 2003, when the U.S. destruction of Iraq split the
Atlantic alliance and alienated most of the world. It is certainly not 2011, after Obama's global
charm offensive had rebuilt U.S. alliances and provided cover for French President Sarkozy, British
Prime Minister Cameron, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the Arab royals to destroy Libya,
once ranked by the U.N. as the
most developed country
in Africa , now mired in intractable chaos.
In 2017, a U.S. attack on any one of Trump's scapegoats would isolate the United States from many
of its allies and undermine its standing in the world in far-reaching ways that might be more permanent
and harder to repair than the invasion and destruction of Iraq.
In Venezuela, the CIA and the right-wing opposition are following the same strategy that President
Nixon ordered the CIA to inflict on Chile, to
"make the economy
scream" in preparation for the 1973 coup. But the
solid victory of Venezuela's
ruling Socialist Party in recent nationwide gubernatorial elections, despite a long and deep
economic crisis, reveals little public support for the CIA's puppets in Venezuela.
The CIA has successfully discredited the Venezuelan government through economic warfare, increasingly
violent right-wing street protests and a global propaganda campaign. But the CIA has stupidly hitched
its wagon to an extreme right-wing, upper-class opposition that has no credibility with most of the
Venezuelan public, who still turn out for the Socialists at the polls. A CIA coup or U.S. military
intervention would meet fierce public resistance and damage U.S. relations all over Latin America.
Boxing In North Korea
A U.S. aerial bombardment or "preemptive strike" on North Korea could quickly escalate into a
war between the U.S. and China, which has reiterated
its commitment to North
Korea's defense if North Korea is attacked. We do not know exactly what was in the
U.S. war plan discovered by North Korea, so neither can we know how North Korea and China could
respond if the U.S. pressed ahead with it.
Most analysts have long concluded that any U.S. attack on North Korea would be met with a North
Korean artillery and missile barrage that would inflict unacceptable civilian casualties on Seoul,
a metropolitan area of 26 million people, three times the population of New York City. Seoul is only
35 miles from the frontier with North Korea, placing it within range of a huge array of North Korean
weapons. What was already a no-win calculus is now compounded by the possibility that North Korea
could respond with nuclear weapons, turning any prospect of a U.S. attack into an even worse nightmare.
U.S. mismanagement of its relations with North Korea should be an object lesson for its relations
with Iran, graphically demonstrating the advantages of diplomacy, talks and agreements over threats
of war. Under the
Agreed Framework
signed in 1994, North Korea stopped work on two much larger nuclear reactors than the small experimental
one operating at Yongbyong since 1986, which only produces 6 kg of plutonium per year, enough for
one nuclear bomb.
The lesson of Bush's Iraq invasion in 2003 after Saddam Hussein had complied with demands that
he destroy Iraq's stockpiles of chemical weapons and shut down a nascent nuclear program was not
lost on North Korea. Not only did the invasion lay waste to large sections of Iraq with hundreds
of thousands of dead but Hussein himself was hunted down and condemned to death by hanging.
Still, after North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, even its small experimental
reactor was shut down as a result of the
"Six Party Talks" in
2007, all the fuel rods were removed and placed under supervision of the International Atomic Energy
Agency, and the cooling tower of the reactor was demolished in 2008.
But then, as relations deteriorated, North Korea conducted a second nuclear weapon test and again
began reprocessing spent fuel rods to recover plutonium for use in nuclear weapons.
North Korea has now conducted six nuclear weapons tests. The explosions in
the first five tests increased gradually up to 15-25 kilotons, about the yield of the bombs the
U.S. dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but estimates for the yield of the 2017 test range
from 110
to 250 kilotons , comparable
to a small hydrogen bomb.
The even greater danger in a new war in Korea is that the U.S. could unleash part of its arsenal
of
4,000 more powerful weapons (100 to 1,200 kilotons), which could kill millions of people and
devastate and poison the region, or even the world, for years to come.
The U.S. willingness to scrap the Agreed Framework in 2003, the breakdown of the Six Party Talks
in 2009 and the U.S. refusal to acknowledge that its own military actions and threats create legitimate
defense concerns for North Korea have driven the North Koreans into a corner from which they see
a credible nuclear deterrent as their only chance to avoid mass destruction.
China has proposed a
reasonable framework for diplomacy to address the concerns of both sides, but the U.S. insists
on maintaining its propaganda narratives that all the fault lies with North Korea and that it has
some kind of "military solution" to the crisis.
This may be the most dangerous idea we have heard from U.S. policymakers since the end of the
Cold War, but it is the logical culmination of a
systematic normalization of deviant and illegal U.S. war-making that has already cost millions
of lives in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen and Pakistan. As historian Gabriel Kolko
wrote in Century of War in 1994, "options and decisions that are intrinsically dangerous
and irrational become not merely plausible but the only form of reasoning about war and diplomacy
that is possible in official circles."
Demonizing Iran
The idea that Iran has ever had a nuclear weapons program is seriously contested by the IAEA,
which has examined every allegation presented by the CIA and other Western "intelligence" agencies
as well as Israel. Former IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei revealed many details of this wild
goose chase in his 2011 memoir,
Age of Deception: Nuclear Diplomacy in Treacherous Times .
When the CIA and its partners reluctantly acknowledged the IAEA's conclusions in a 2007 National
Intelligence Estimate (NIE), ElBaradei issued
a press release confirming that, "the agency has no concrete evidence of an ongoing nuclear weapons
program or undeclared nuclear facilities in Iran."
Since 2007, the IAEA has resolved all its outstanding concerns with Iran. It has verified that
dual-use technologies that Iran imported before 2003 were in fact used for other purposes, and it
has exposed the mysterious "laptop documents" that appeared to show Iranian plans for a nuclear weapon
as forgeries. Gareth Porter thoroughly explored all these questions and allegations and the history
of mistrust that fueled them in his 2014 book,
Manufactured
Crisis: the Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare , which I highly recommend.
But, in the parallel Bizarro world of U.S. politics, hopelessly poisoned by the CIA's
endless disinformation campaigns, Hillary Clinton could repeatedly take false credit for disarming
Iran during her presidential campaign, and neither Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump nor any corporate
media interviewer dared to challenge her claims.
"When President Obama took office, Iran was racing toward a nuclear bomb," Clinton fantasized
in a
prominent foreign policy speech on June 2, 2016, claiming that her brutal sanctions policy "brought
Iran to the table."
In fact, as Trita Parsi documented in his 2012 book,
A Single
Roll of the Dice: Obama's Diplomacy With Iran , the Iranians were ready, not just
to "come to the table," but to sign a comprehensive agreement based on a U.S. proposal brokered by
Turkey and Brazil in 2010. But, in a classic case of "tail wags dog," the U.S. then rejected its
own proposal because it would have undercut support for tighter sanctions in the U.N. Security Council.
In other words, Clinton's sanctions policy did not "bring Iran to the table", but prevented the U.S.
from coming to the table itself.
As a senior State Department official told Trita Parsi, the real problem with U.S. diplomacy with
Iran when Clinton was at the State Department was that the U.S. would not take "Yes" for an answer.
Trump's ham-fisted decertification of Iran's compliance with the JCPOA is right out of Clinton's
playbook, and it demonstrates that the CIA is still determined to use Iran as a scapegoat for America's
failures in the Middle East.
The spurious claim that Iran is the world's greatest sponsor of terrorism is another CIA canard
reinforced by endless repetition. It is true that Iran supports and supplies weapons to Hezbollah
and Hamas, which are both listed as terrorist organizations by the U.S. government. But they are
mainly defensive resistance groups that defend Lebanon and Gaza respectively against invasions and
attacks by Israel.
Shifting attention away from Al Qaeda, Islamic State, the
Libyan Islamic Fighting Group and other groups that actually commit terrorist crimes around the
world might just seem like a case of the CIA "taking its eyes off the ball," if it wasn't so transparently
timed to frame Iran with new accusations now that the manufactured crisis of the nuclear scare has
run its course.
What the Future Holds
Barack Obama's most consequential international achievement may have been the triumph of symbolism
over substance behind which he expanded and escalated the so-called "war on terror," with a vast
expansion of covert operations and proxy wars that eventually triggered the
heaviest U.S.
aerial bombardments since Vietnam in Iraq and Syria.
Obama's charm offensive invigorated old and new military alliances with the U.K., France and
the Arab monarchies, and he quietly ran up the
most expensive military budget of any president since World War Two.
But Obama's expansion of the "war on terror" under cover of his deceptive global public relations
campaign created many more problems than it solved, and Trump and his advisers are woefully ill-equipped
to solve any of them. Trump's expressed desire to place America first and to resist foreign entanglements
is hopelessly at odds with his aggressive, bullying approach to every foreign policy problem.
If the U.S. could threaten and fight its way to a resolution of any of its international problems,
it would have done so already. That is exactly what it has been trying to do since the 1990s, behind
both the swagger and bluster of Bush and Trump and the deceptive charm of Clinton and Obama: a "good
cop – bad cop" routine that should no longer fool anyone anywhere.
But as Lyndon Johnson found as he waded deeper and deeper into the Big Muddy in Vietnam, lying
to the public about unwinnable wars does not make them any more winnable. It just gets more people
killed and makes it harder and harder to ever tell the public the truth.
In unwinnable wars based on lies, the "credibility" problem only gets more complicated, as new
lies require new scapegoats and convoluted narratives to explain away graveyards filled by old lies.
Obama's cynical global charm offensive bought the "war on terror" another eight years, but that only
allowed the CIA to drag the U.S. into more trouble and spread its chaos to more places around the
world.
Meanwhile, Russian President Putin is winning hearts and minds in capitals around the world by
calling for a recommitment to the
rule of international
law , which
prohibits
the threat or use of military force except in self-defense. Every new U.S. threat or act of aggression
will only make Putin's case more persuasive, not least to important U.S. allies like South Korea,
Germany and other members of the European Union, whose complicity in U.S. aggression has until now
helped to give it a false veneer of political legitimacy.
Throughout history, serial aggression has nearly always provoked increasingly united opposition,
as peace-loving countries and people have reluctantly summoned the courage to stand up to an aggressor.
France under Napoleon and Hitler's Germany also regarded themselves as exceptional, and in their
own ways they were. But in the end, their belief in their exceptionalism led them on to defeat and
destruction.
Americans had better hope that we are not so exceptional, and that the world will find a diplomatic
rather than a military "solution" to its American problem. Our chances of survival would improve
a great deal if American officials and politicians would finally start to act like something other
than putty in the hands of the CIA
Nicolas J. S. Davies is the author of Blood On Our Hands: the American Invasion and Destruction
of Iraq . He also wrote the chapters on "Obama at War" in Grading the 44th President: a Report Card
on Barack Obama's First Term as a Progressive Leader .
Nationalism really represent a growing threat to neoliberalism. It is clear the the rise of
nationalism was caused by the triumph of neoliberalism all over the globe. As neoliberal
ideology collapsed in 2008, thing became really interesting now. Looks like
1920th-1940th will be replayed on a new level with the USA neoliberal empire under stress from
new challengers instead of British empire.
Rumor about the death of neoliberalism are slightly exaggerated ;-). This social system still
has a lot of staying power. you need some external shock like the need of cheap oil (defined as
sustainable price of oil over $100 per barrel) to shake it again. Of some financial crisis similar
to the crisis of 2008. Currently there is still
no alternative social order that can replace it. Collapse of the USSR discredited both socialism even
of different flavors then was practiced in the USSR. National socialism would be a step back from
neoliberalism.
Notable quotes:
"... The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade. This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests are now between what the west would consider conservatives: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html ..."
"... What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to as "two wings of the same bird of prey." ..."
"... Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization is less important than short-term profits and power. ..."
"... Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House. Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way. Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers. ..."
"... It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc. ..."
"... If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008). ..."
"... And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free trade". ..."
"... The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism), as shown by the last US Presidential election. ..."
"... Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders. Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations, as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency. ..."
"... But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin in liberal interventionism. ..."
Asked to name the defining attributes of the America we wish to become, many liberals would answer
that we must realize our manifest destiny since 1776, by becoming more equal, more diverse and more
democratic -- and the model for mankind's future.
Equality, diversity, democracy -- this is the holy trinity of the post-Christian secular state
at whose altars Liberal Man worships.
But the congregation worshiping these gods is shrinking. And even Europe seems to be rejecting
what America has on offer.
In a retreat from diversity, Catalonia just voted to separate from Spain. The Basque and Galician
peoples of Spain are following the Catalan secession crisis with great interest.
The right-wing People's Party and far-right Freedom Party just swept 60 percent of Austria's vote,
delivering the nation to 31-year-old Sebastian Kurz, whose anti-immigrant platform was plagiarized
from the Freedom Party. Summarized it is: Austria for the Austrians!
Lombardy, whose capital is Milan, and Veneto will vote Sunday for greater autonomy from Rome.
South Tyrol (Alto Adige), severed from Austria and ceded to Italy at Versailles, written off by
Hitler to appease Mussolini after his Anschluss, is astir anew with secessionism. Even the Sicilians
are talking of separation.
By Sunday, the Czech Republic may have a new leader, billionaire Andrej Babis. Writes The Washington
Post, Babis "makes a sport of attacking the European Union and says NATO's mission is outdated."
Platform Promise: Keep the Muslim masses out of the motherland.
To ethnonationalists, their countrymen are not equal to all others, but superior in rights. Many
may nod at Thomas Jefferson's line that "All men are created equal," but they no more practice that
in their own nations than did Jefferson in his
... ... ...
European peoples and parties are today using democratic means to achieve "illiberal" ends. And
it is hard to see what halts the drift away from liberal democracy toward the restrictive right.
For in virtually every nation, there is a major party in opposition, or a party in power, that holds
deeply nationalist views.
European elites may denounce these new parties as "illiberal" or fascist, but it is becoming apparent
that it may be liberalism itself that belongs to yesterday. For more and more Europeans see the invasion
of the continent along the routes whence the invaders came centuries ago, not as a manageable problem
but an existential crisis.
To many Europeans, it portends an irreversible alteration in the character of the countries their
grandchildren will inherit, and possibly an end to their civilization. And they are not going to
be deterred from voting their fears by being called names that long ago lost their toxicity from
overuse.
And as Europeans decline to celebrate the racial, ethnic, creedal and cultural diversity extolled
by American elites, they also seem to reject the idea that foreigners should be treated equally in
nations created for their own kind.
Europeans seem to admire more, and model their nations more, along the lines of the less diverse
America of the Eisenhower era, than on the polyglot America of 2017.
And Europe seems to be moving toward immigration polices more like the McCarran-Walter Act of
1950 than the open borders bill that Sen. Edward Kennedy shepherded through the Senate in 1965.
Kennedy promised that the racial and ethnic composition of the America of the 1960s would not
be overturned, and he questioned the morality and motives of any who implied that it would.
Liberalism is the naivete of 18th century elites, no different than today. Modernity as you
know it is unsustainable, mostly because equality isn't real, identity has value for most humans,
pluralism is by definition fractious, and deep down most people wish to follow a wise strongman
leader who represents their interests first and not a vague set of universalist values.
Blind devotion to liberal democracy is another one of those times when white people take an
abstract concept to weird extremes. It is short-sighted and autistically narrow minded. Just because
you have an oppressive king doesn't mean everyone should be equals. Just because there was slavery/genocide
doesn't mean diversity is good.
The retreat of [neo]liberalism is very visible in Asia. All Southeast Asian states have turned their
backs on liberal democracy, especially Indonesia, the Philippines and Myanmar in the last decade.
This NYT article notes that liberalism has essentially died in Japan, and that all political contests
are now between what the west would consider conservatives:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/15/opinion/liberalism-japan-election.html
Good riddance. The idea that egalitarianism is more advanced than hierarchy has always been
false, and flies against the long arc of history. Time for nationalists around the world to smash
liberal democracy and build a new modernity based on actual humanism, with respect to hierarchies
and the primacy of majorities instead of guilt and pathological compassion dressed up as political
ideology.
"Liberalism" is not dying. "Liberalism" is dead, and has been since at least 1970.
What is today called "Liberalism" and "Conservatism" both are simply corrupted labels applied
to the same top-down corporate-fascistic elite rule that I think Mr. Buchanan once referred to
as "two wings of the same bird of prey."
Nobody at the top cares about 'diversity.' They care about the easy profits that come from
ever cheaper labor. 'Diversity' is not suicide but rather murder: instigated by a small number
of very powerful people who have decided that the long-term health of their nations and civilization
is less important than short-term profits and power.
Its been dead for nearly 20 years now. Liberalism has long been the Monty Python parrot nailed
to its perch. At this point, the term is mainly kept alive in right-wing attacks by people who
lack the imagination to change their habitual targets for so long.
To my eye, the last 'liberal' politician died in a susupicious plane crash in 2000 as the Bush
Republicans were taking the White House by their famous 5-4 vote/coup and also needed to claim
control of the Senate. So, the last authentic 'liberal' Senator, Paul Wellstone of MN was killed
in a suspicious plane crash that was never properly explained.
Hillary and Obama are to the right of the President that Buchanan served in his White House.
Richard Nixon was to the Left of both Hillary and Obama. I can't even imagine Hillary accepting
and signing into law a 'Clean Water Act' or enacting Price Controls to fight inflation. No way.
Heck would freeze over before Hillary would do something so against her Banker Backers.
And, at the root, that is the key. The 'Liberals' that the right now rails against are strongly
backed and supported by the Wall Street Banks and other corporate leaders. The 'Liberals' have
pushed for a government Of the Bankers, By the Bankers and For the Bankers. The 'Liberals' now
are in favor of Endless Unconstitutional War around the world.
Which can only mean that the term 'Liberal' has been so completely morphed away from its original
meanings to be completely worthless.
The last true Liberal in American politics was Paul Wellstone. And even by the time he died
for his sins, he was calling himself a "progressive" because after the Clintons and the Gores
had so distorted the term Liberal it was meaningless. Or it had come to mean a society ruled by
bankers, a society at constant war and throwing money constantly at a gigantic war machine, a
society of censorship where the government needed to control all music lyrics, the same corrupt
government where money could by anything from a night in the Lincoln Bedroom to a Presidential
Pardon or any other government favor.
Thus, 'Liberals' were a dead movement even by 2000, when the people who actually believed in
the American People over the profits of bankers were calling themselves Progressives in disgust
at the misuse of the term Liberal. And now, Obama and Hillary have trashed and distorted even
the term Progressive into bombing the world 365 days a year and still constantly throwing money
at the military machine and the problems it invents.
So, Liberalism is so long dead that if you exumed the grave you'd only find dust. And Pat must
be getting senile and just throwing back out the same lines he once wrote as a speechwriter for
the last Great Lefty President Richard Nixon.
Another question is whether this is wishful thinking from Pat or some kind of reality.
I think that he's right, that Liberalism is a dying faith, and it's interesting to check the
decline.
It's sure that financial (neo)liberalism was in a growth phase prior to year 2000 (under
Greenspan, the "Maestro") with a general belief that the economy could be "fine tuned" with risk
eliminated using sophisticated financial instruments, monetary policy etc.
If [neo] Liberalism is a package, then two heavy financial blows that shook the whole foundation
were the collapse of the dot.com bubble (2000) and the mortgage bubble (2008).
And, other (self-serving) neoliberal stories are now seen as false. For example, that the
US is an "advanced post-industrial service economy", that out-sourcing would "free up Americans
for higher skilled/higher wage employment" or that "the US would always gain from tariff free
trade".
In fact, the borderless global "world is flat" dogma is now seen as enabling a rootless hyper-rich
global elite to draw on a sea of globalized serf labour with little or no identity, while their
media and SWJ activists operate a scorched earth defense against any sign of opposition.
The basic divide is surely Nationalism (America First) vs. Globalism (Neo-Liberalism),
as shown by the last US Presidential election.
A useful analogy might be Viktor Orbán. He started out as a leader of a liberal party, Fidesz,
but then over time started moving to the right. It is often speculated that he started it for
cynical reasons, like seeing how the right was divided and that there was essentially a vacuum
there for a strong conservative party, but there's little doubt he totally internalized it. There's
also little doubt (and at the time he and a lot of his fellow party leaders talked about it a
lot) that as he (they) started a family and having children, they started to realize how conservatism
kinda made more sense than liberalism.
With Kurz, there's the possibility for this path. However, he'd need to start a family soon
for that to happen. At that age Orbán was already married with children
Neoliberalism, of which the Clintons are acolytes, supports Free Trade and Open Borders.
Although it claims to support World Government, in actual fact it supports corporatism. This is
explicit in the TPPA Trump vetoed. Under the corporate state, the state controls the corporations,
as Don Benito did in Italy. Under corporatism, the corporations tell the state what to do, as
has been the case in America since at least the Clinton Presidency.
Richard Nixon was a capitalist, not a corporatist. He was a supporter of proper competition
laws, unlike any President since Clinton. Socially, he was interventionist, though this may have
been to lessen criticism of his Vietnam policies. Anyway, his bussing and desegregation policies
were a long-term failure.
Price Control was quickly dropped, as it was in other Western countries. Long term Price Control,
as in present day Venezuela, is economically disastrous.
Let's hope liberalism is a dying faith and that is passes from the Western world. If not it will
destroy the West, so if it doesn't die a natural death then we must euthanize it. For the evidence
is in and it has begat feminism, anti-white racism, demographic winter, mass third world immigration
and everything else that ails the West and has made it the sick and dying man of the world.
But I recall that Pat B also said neoconservatism was on its way out a few years after
Iraq war II and yet it's stronger than ever and its adherents are firmly ensconced in the joint
chiefs of staff, the pentagon, Congress and the White House. It's also spawned a close cousin
in liberal interventionism.
What Pat refers to as "liberalism" is now left wing totalitarianism and anti-white hatred and
it's fanatically trying to remain relevant by lashing out and blacklisting, deplatforming, demonetizing,
and physically assaulting all of its enemies on the right who are gaining strength much to their
chagrin. They resort to these methods because they can't win an honest debate and in a true free
marketplace of ideas they lose.
"... What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump says because what he says is as likely as not to have
no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year during the campaign or even what he said last week. ..."
One of the best summary observations in this regard is from Washington Post columnist
Steven Pearlstein , who writes on business and financial matters but whose conclusions could apply as well to Trump's handling
of a wide range of foreign and domestic matters: " What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump
says because what he says is as likely as not to have no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year
during the campaign or even what he said last week. What he says bears no relationship to any consistent political or policy
ideology or world-view. What he says is also likely to bear no relationship to what his top advisers or appointees have said or
believe, making them unreliable interlocutors even if they agreed among themselves, which they don't. This lack of clear policy
is compounded by the fact that the president, despite his boasts to the contrary, knows very little about the topics at hand and
isn't particularly interested in learning. In other words, he's still making it up as he goes along."
Many elements of dismay can follow from the fact of having this kind of president. We are apt to get a better idea of which
specific things are most worthy of dismay as the rest of this presidency unfolds. I suggest, however, that a prime, overarching
reason to worry is Trump's utter disregard for the truth. Not just a disregard, actually, but a determination to crush the truth
and to instill falsehood in the minds of as many people as possible. The Post 's fact checker,
Glenn Kessler , summarizes the situation by noting that "the pace and volume of the president's misstatements" are so great
that he and other fact checkers "cannot possibly keep up."
Kessler also observes how Trump's handling of falsehoods is qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from the
garden variety of lying in which many politicians indulge: "Many will drop a false claim after it has been deemed false. But Trump
just repeats the claim over and over." It is a technique reminiscent of the Big Lie that totalitarian regimes have used, in which
the repetition and brazenness of a lie help lead to its acceptance.
The problem is fundamental, and relates to a broad spectrum of policy issues both foreign and domestic, because truth-factual
reality -- is a necessary foundation to consider and evaluate and debate policy on any subject. Crushing the truth means not just
our having to endure any one misdirected policy; it means losing the ability even to address policy intelligently. To the extent
that falsehood is successfully instilled in the minds of enough people, the political system loses what would otherwise be its
ability to provide a check on policy that is bad policy because it is inconsistent with factual reality.
"... What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump says because what he says is as likely as not to have
no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year during the campaign or even what he said last week. ..."
One of the best summary observations in this regard is from Washington Post columnist
Steven Pearlstein , who writes on business and financial matters but whose conclusions could apply as well to Trump's handling
of a wide range of foreign and domestic matters: " What we know, first and foremost, is that it hardly matters what Trump
says because what he says is as likely as not to have no relationship to the truth, no relationship to what he said last year
during the campaign or even what he said last week. What he says bears no relationship to any consistent political or policy
ideology or world-view. What he says is also likely to bear no relationship to what his top advisers or appointees have said or
believe, making them unreliable interlocutors even if they agreed among themselves, which they don't. This lack of clear policy
is compounded by the fact that the president, despite his boasts to the contrary, knows very little about the topics at hand and
isn't particularly interested in learning. In other words, he's still making it up as he goes along."
Many elements of dismay can follow from the fact of having this kind of president. We are apt to get a better idea of which
specific things are most worthy of dismay as the rest of this presidency unfolds. I suggest, however, that a prime, overarching
reason to worry is Trump's utter disregard for the truth. Not just a disregard, actually, but a determination to crush the truth
and to instill falsehood in the minds of as many people as possible. The Post 's fact checker,
Glenn Kessler , summarizes the situation by noting that "the pace and volume of the president's misstatements" are so great
that he and other fact checkers "cannot possibly keep up."
Kessler also observes how Trump's handling of falsehoods is qualitatively as well as quantitatively different from the
garden variety of lying in which many politicians indulge: "Many will drop a false claim after it has been deemed false. But Trump
just repeats the claim over and over." It is a technique reminiscent of the Big Lie that totalitarian regimes have used, in which
the repetition and brazenness of a lie help lead to its acceptance.
The problem is fundamental, and relates to a broad spectrum of policy issues both foreign and domestic, because truth-factual
reality -- is a necessary foundation to consider and evaluate and debate policy on any subject. Crushing the truth means not just
our having to endure any one misdirected policy; it means losing the ability even to address policy intelligently. To the extent
that falsehood is successfully instilled in the minds of enough people, the political system loses what would otherwise be its
ability to provide a check on policy that is bad policy because it is inconsistent with factual reality.
This reincarnation of Madeleine "Not so bright" Albright is capable mostly of imperial bulling. But times changed...
Notable quotes:
"... While you are here For the last 15 years, our magazine has endeavored to be your refuge from the nasty partisan politics and Washington echo chamber with thoughtful, smart conservatism, fresh and challenging writing, and authors who, above all, bravely hew to our most basic tenets: Ideas over ideology, principles over party. Please consider a tax-deductible, year-end contribution so that TAC can make an even bigger difference in 2018! ..."
"... for reasons unknown (other than perhaps her Indian heritage), Donald Trump tapped her to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. There, she has performed to perfection, offering a model of the hubris and lack of awareness that consistently characterize U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... What makes Americ a different from other nations when it comes to foreign policy is the certainty that it is the right -- indeed, the duty -- of Americans to run the world. That means telling everyone everywhere what they should do, not just internationally, but in their own nations, too. ..."
"... U.S. officials believe they know how other societies should organize their governments, who foreign peoples should elect, what economic policies other nations should implement, and what social practices foreigners should encourage and suppress ..."
"... . On Fox News (where else?) she declared: "We have the right to do whatever we want in terms of where we put our embassies." As for foreign criticism: "We don't need other countries telling us what's right and wrong." ..."
"... What could be more obvious? Other governments have no right to make decisions about their own countries, and need to be told what's right and wrong by Washington on any and every subject, day or night, in sunshine, rain, or snow. But another element of American exceptionalism is the fact that the U.S. is exempt from the rules it applies to other nations. Washington gets to lecture, but no one gets to tell Americans what they should do. ..."
"... The sad irony is that the U.S. would have greater credibility if it better practiced what it preached, and didn't attempt social engineering abroad that's routinely failed at home. Especially nice would be a bit more humility and self-awareness by Washington's representatives. But Nikki Haley seems determined to continue as a disciple of the Madeleine Albright school of all-knowing, all-seeing, all-saying diplomacy. As such, she's unlikely to fool anyone other than herself. ..."
Carrying on the tradition of hubris and hypocrisy of every other modern U.N. ambassador.While you are here For the last
15 years, our magazine has endeavored to be your refuge from the nasty partisan politics and Washington echo chamber with thoughtful,
smart conservatism, fresh and challenging writing, and authors who, above all, bravely hew to our most basic tenets: Ideas over ideology,
principles over party. Please consider
a tax-deductible, year-end contribution so that TAC can make an even bigger difference in 2018!
As governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley didn't have much need to worry about foreign policy. Yet for reasons unknown (other
than perhaps her Indian heritage), Donald Trump tapped her to be the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. There, she has performed
to perfection, offering a model of the hubris and lack of awareness that consistently characterize U.S. foreign policy.
What makes Americ a different from other nations when it comes to foreign policy is the certainty that it is the right --
indeed, the duty -- of Americans to run the world. That means telling everyone everywhere what they should do, not just internationally,
but in their own nations, too.
U.S. officials believe they know how other societies should organize their governments, who foreign peoples should elect,
what economic policies other nations should implement, and what social practices foreigners should encourage and suppress .
There is precedent for Washington as all-seeing and all-knowing. A sparrow cannot "fall to the ground apart from the will of"
God, Jesus explained. So, too, it appears, is such an event impossible in America's view apart from U.S. approval.
Washington officials rarely are so blunt, but their rhetoric is routinely suffused with arrogance. The concept of American exceptionalism
is one example. The country's founding was unique and the U.S. has played an extraordinary role in international affairs, but that
does not sanctify policies that have often been brutal, selfish, incompetent, perverse, and immoral. Sometimes America's actions
share all of those characteristics simultaneously -- such as aiding the royal Saudi dictatorship as it slaughters civilians in Yemen
in an attempt to restore a puppet regime there.
In recent history, Madeleine Albright, both as UN ambassador and secretary of state under Bill Clinton, perhaps came closest to
personifying the clueless American diplomat. As Washington made a hash of the Balkans and Middle East, she explained that "we stand
tall. We see further than other countries in the future." The U.S., of course, was "the indispensable nation." Which presumably is
why she felt entitled to announce that "we think the price is worth it" when asked about the reported deaths of a half million Iraqi
children as a result of sanctions against Baghdad.
And, of course, there was her extraordinary exchange with Colin Powell, then chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, when she asked,
"What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" Presumably she had no family members
at risk as she planned to wage global crusades with other people's lives.
Albright has large shoes to fill but Haley appears to be well on her way. In a position that theoretically emphasizes diplomacy,
the former South Carolina governor has been cheerleading for war with North Korea. Never mind that a nuke or two landing on Seoul
or Tokyo would wipe out millions of people. No doubt she will cheerfully put a positive spin on disaster if the administration decides
it's time for Armageddon in Northeast Asia.
Haley has also brilliantly played the sycophantic spokeswoman for the Saudi royals. Riyadh's intervention in the unending Yemeni
civil war has killed thousands of civilians, imposed a starvation blockade, and led famine and cholera to sweep through what was
already one of the poorest nations on earth. All of this has been done with U.S. support: supplying munitions, refueling aircraft,
and aiding with targeting.
But when the Yemenis returned fire with a missile, Haley summoned her best sanctimonious demeanor and denounced Iran for allegedly
making this outrageous, shocking attack possible. Apparently the Saudi sense of entitlement goes so far as to believe that Saudi
Arabia's victims aren't even supposed to shoot back.
Yet Haley's finest hubristic moment may have come after the president's decision to move America's embassy to Jerusalem. Israel
treats that city as its capital, of course. But Jerusalem is the holiest land for Jews and Christians, third holiest for Muslims,
and the most emotional point of dispute between Israelis and Palestinians. Indeed, since conquering East Jerusalem in the 1967 war,
the Israeli government has been working assiduously to squeeze Palestinians out of the city.
Congress's approval in 1995 of legislation mandating that the State Department move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem was politics
at its most cynical. Members in the Republican-controlled Congress postured as great friends of Israel while adding a waiver that
they expected presidents to always employ. Everyone did so until Donald Trump. At least his decision ostentatiously puts the lie
to the claim that Washington can play honest broker in promoting a Middle East peace. No sentient Palestinian could have believed
so, but the president finally made it official.
That Haley kept a straight face while explaining how Washington could upset the status quo, outrage Palestinians, undercut Arab
allies, and anger Muslims, yet still bring peace, harmony, and calm to the Middle East was to be expected. "We can see the peace
process really come together," she declared without a hint of irony.
But her finest moment -- almost Churchillian in significance -- was when she responded to criticism of the president's decision,
including by the other 14 members of the UN Security Council. On Fox News (where else?) she declared: "We have the right
to do whatever we want in terms of where we put our embassies." As for foreign criticism: "We don't need other countries telling
us what's right and wrong."
Of course.
What could be more obvious? Other governments have no right to make decisions about their own countries, and need to be told
what's right and wrong by Washington on any and every subject, day or night, in sunshine, rain, or snow. But another element of American
exceptionalism is the fact that the U.S. is exempt from the rules it applies to other nations. Washington gets to lecture, but no
one gets to tell Americans what they should do.
The sad irony is that the U.S. would have greater credibility if it better practiced what it preached, and didn't attempt
social engineering abroad that's routinely failed at home. Especially nice would be a bit more humility and self-awareness by Washington's
representatives. But Nikki Haley seems determined to continue as a disciple of the Madeleine Albright school of all-knowing, all-seeing,
all-saying diplomacy. As such, she's unlikely to fool anyone other than herself.
Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute and a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the
author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire.
All of us at TAC wish you a Merry Christmas holiday and the best wishes for 2018. Our 501(c)(3) depends on your generosity
to make the biggest impact possible. Please consider your tax deductible donation to our magazine,
here .* Thank you!
*Contribute $250 or more before December 31 and receive an autographed copy of Robert Merry's brand new book, President
McKinley: Architect of a New Century!
The key here is whether Russia will stop transit of gas via Ukraine or not.
Notable quotes:
"... A more far-reaching result from the Stockholm proceedings was the intention to void the traditional (Gazprom) formula for gas prices which is based on a linkage to the price of oil. Instead, the price of gas will be tied directly to the spot gas market such as the European hub. ..."
"... In traditional Gazprom contracts, the price of gas depends on the price of oil, and only up to 15% of the price is a spot gas component. For decades, this contractual linkage of the price of gas to oil was largely accepted as being open and fair. ..."
"... the Stockholm arbitration declared that Naftogaz must honor their contract, and buy from Gazprom 5 billion cubic meters of gas annually. As it turns out the "take or pay" clause remains in force, but the volume has been significantly reduced. ..."
"... The irony is that while this is a loss of face for Kiev politically, economically it benefits the Ukrainian consumer. To date, Ukraine's purchases of "reverse gas" from Europe has been far more expensive than that which was contracted reliably over the years by Gazprom. ..."
After 2014, Ukraine claimed that it was being overcharged, and therefore Naftogaz refused to
pay Gazprom their contracted price for gas. Instead, it paid unilaterally a different amount
that it subjectively considered "fair."
Gazprom, in keeping with mutually contracted terms and conditions, could only issue an
invoice for the resulting underpayment, and after Naftogaz still refused to pay (a debt of
approx. $2 billion), made any further deliveries of gas contingent on prepayment.
The arbitration additionally upheld Gazprom's position and denied Naftogaz any right to a
refund for gas priced between May 2011 and April 2014 or collect any of the claimed
"overcharged gas" totaling approximately $14 billion for that period. In sum, the price Kiev
claimed was "inflated" was judged as in Stockholm as baseless.
Therefore, the question of who is accountable and responsible for settling debt has been
clarified in Stockholm. Naftogaz must pay Gazprom $2 billion plus a fine calculated at 0.03%
per day for each day this debt remains unpaid. This fine has already reached $3 million since
the court decision on December 22nd, and if it not paid can reach an annualized figure of $216
million and still keep growing daily.
Like any political and economic story, there is quite a bit that does not make the flashy
headlines, but plays a role in contributing to the noise surrounding an issue. Naftogaz takes
satisfaction in that the settlement allowed that the gas price for the second quarter of 2014
was to be reduced from $485 to $352 per 1000 cubic meters, or 27%, thereby "saving" Ukraine
about $ 1.8 billion for 2014-2015. The price of $485 was in fact fixed for that one quarter,
and it was higher than the market price. The reason was that the March referendum and
subsequent reunification of Crimea within the Russian Federation happened then. Up until that
time, Russia had given Ukraine a discount of $100 per one thousand cubic meters of gas as
payment for renting the Crimean base for the Black Sea fleet. The Kharkov treaty with Ukraine
which dealt with the naval base was therefore canceled, as Crimea was once again Russia.
Without this discount, the price increased by that same discounted $100 in the contracted
quarterly price fix.
Key is Stockholm's recognition that the Russian gas price for Ukraine in 2011-2014 was fair,
which is much more important than the price fixed in that second quarter in question. It is
worth noting in the next third quarter of 2014 Gazprom was prepared to provide Ukraine with a
market price for gas again. However, as we all know today, since June 2014 Naftogaz has refused
to buy gas from Russia for political reasons and calling it an "aggressor nation."
A more far-reaching result from the Stockholm proceedings was the intention to void the
traditional (Gazprom) formula for gas prices which is based on a linkage to the price of oil.
Instead, the price of gas will be tied directly to the spot gas market such as the European
hub. Should this occur, then the future gas price for Ukraine will be linked to the cost of
fuel in the European hub. This would be a major departure from the traditional pricing Gazprom
has used for decades, and might set a precedent for other buyers of Russian gas, who might also
want to change their price formulation. In traditional Gazprom contracts, the price of gas
depends on the price of oil, and only up to 15% of the price is a spot gas component. For
decades, this contractual linkage of the price of gas to oil was largely accepted as being open
and fair.
Since 2014, Ukraine has been buying reverse gas from Europe at such European spot hub
prices, and it has so far been more expensive than the traditional Gazprom contract. It is also
worth noting that spot prices are far more volatile, are seasonally demand-affected, and as
winter is a peak consumption season the prices can and do increase dramatically.
Why did Gazprom take their initial large claims to court knowing beforehand that it would be
impossible to get the tens of billions of dollars from Naftogaz or Ukraine without ruining both
through default? The first reason is that a "take or pay" clause was a key and mutually agreed
covenant of the contractual relationship, not a point to be discarded unilaterally by any
single party. The second reason was as a response to Naftogaz multi-billion lawsuit on the
transit of gas from Russia through Ukraine to Europe. The Ukrainian side believes that Gazprom
should pay them extra for not sending 110 billion cubic meters of gas through pipelines
annually across Ukraine. In the transit contract, there is no obligation for any such volumes
to be transited through Ukraine's pipelines.
To sum up this drama, the Stockholm arbitration declared that Naftogaz must honor their
contract, and buy from Gazprom 5 billion cubic meters of gas annually. As it turns out the
"take or pay" clause remains in force, but the volume has been significantly reduced. How this
volume of 5 billion cubic meters was arrived at remains a mystery, but one which will surely
become clear over time. The political spin, however, will be interesting to observe since
Ukraine must now buy (and pay for) this Russian gas. How will Kiev explain now having to buy
Russian gas when since 2014 it stridently proclaimed it shall never buy fuel from "that
aggressor nation."
The irony is that while this is a loss of face for Kiev politically, economically it
benefits the Ukrainian consumer. To date, Ukraine's purchases of "reverse gas" from Europe has
been far more expensive than that which was contracted reliably over the years by Gazprom. Now
Kiev will have to find the funds to pay for Gazprom's gas, settle their debt and ever-growing
fines, plus meet the rest of their energy needs by purchasing expensive reverse gas from
Europe. It will take spin that is a lot more imaginative from Kiev to package this settlement
into a believable political victory, and very creative accounting to get the money to pay for
it.
"... What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship between the two countries will further deteriorate. Putin's Russia is a kind of Mordor which represents all evil and stands behind all evil. Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future. ..."
Russia option 1 : rumors that the US would disconnect Russia from SWIFT or steal
(that is politely called "freeze") Russian assets and funds in the US have been going in for a
long time already. And the Russians have been making all sorts of menacing noises about this,
but all of them very vague which tells me that Russia might not have any good retaliatory
options and that this time around the hot air is blowing from Moscow. Of course, Putin is a
unpredictable master strategist and the folks around him are very, very smart. They might hold
something up their sleeve which I am not aware of but I strongly suspect that, unlike me, the
US intelligence community must be fully aware of what this might be. I am not an economist and
there is much I don't know here, I therefore assessed the risk as "unknown" for me.
Russia option 2 : the reaction of Russia to the shooting down by Turkey of a SU-24 in
2015 might well have given the US politicians and commanders a feeling that they could do the
same and get away with it. In truth, they might be right. But they might also be wrong. The big
difference with the case of the SU-24 is that Russia has formidable air-defenses deployed in
Syria which present a major threat for US forces. Furthermore, if a Russian aircraft is under
attack and the Russians reply by firing a volley of ground-to-air missiles, what would the US
do – attack a Russian S-400 battery?
The US is also in a tricky situation in an air-to-air confrontation. While the F-22 is an
excellent air superiority fighter it has one huge weakness: it is designed to engage its
adversaries from a long range and to shoot first, before it is detected (I mention only the
F-22 here because it is the only US aircraft capable of challenging the Su-30SM/Su-35). But if
the rules of engagement say that before firing at a Russian aircraft the F-22 has to issue a
clear warning or if the engagement happens at medium to short range distances, then the F-22 is
at a big disadvantage, especially against a Su-30SM or Su-35.
Another major weakness of the F-22 is that, unlike the Su-30/Su-35, it does not have a real
electronic warfare suite (the F-22's INEWS does not really qualify). In plain English this
means that the F-22 was designed to maximize its low radar cross section but at a cost of all
other aspects of aerial warfare (radar power, hyper maneuverability, electronic warfare,
passive engagement, etc.).
This all gets very technical and complicated very fast, but I think that we can agree that
the Neocons are unlikely to be very impressed by the risks posed by Russian forces in Syria and
that they will likely feel that they can punch the russkies in the nose and that these russkies
will have to take it. Local US commanders might feel otherwise, but that is also entirely
irrelevant. Still, I place the risk here at 'medium' even if, potentially, this could lead to a
catastrophic thermonuclear war because I don't think that the Neocons believe that the Russians
will escalate too much (who starts WWIII over one shot down aircraft anyway, right?!). Think of
it: if you were the commander of the Russian task force in Syria, what would you do if the US
shot down on of your aircraft (remember, you assume that you are a responsible and intelligent
commander, not a flag-waving delusional maniac)?
What will not stop is the full-spectrum demonization of Russia, thus the relationship
between the two countries will further deteriorate. Putin's Russia is a kind of Mordor which represents all evil and
stands behind all evil. Denouncing and openly hating Russia has now become a form of
virtue-signaling. Since the entire US political elites have endorsed this phobia, it is
exceedingly unlikely to change in the foreseeable future.
Donbass : will the Ukronazis finally attack? Well, they have been for many months already!
Not only did they never stop shelling the Donbass, but they have this new "frog-jump" (pseudo)
strategy which consists of moving in military forces in the neutral zone, seize an undefended
town and then declare a major victory against Russia. They have also been re-arming,
re-organizing, re-grouping and otherwise bolstering their forces in the East. As a result, the
Urkonazis have at least 3:1 advantage against the Novorussians. However, we should not look at
this from the Ukronazi or Novorussian point of view. Instead we should look at it from the
Neocon point of view:
Possible outcomes
US reactions
Option one: Ukronazis win
Russia is defeated, US proves its power
Option two: Novorussians win
Russia is accused of invading the Ukraine
Option three: Novorussians lose and Russia openly intervenes
A Neocon dream come true: the NATO has a purpose again:decades of Cold War
v2 in Europe.
The way I see it, in all three cases the AngloZionist prevail though clearly option #2 is
the worst possible outcome and option #3 is the best one. In truth, the AngloZionists have very
little to lose in a Ukronazi attack on Novorussia. Not so the Ukrainian people, of course.
Right now the US and several European countries are shipping various types of weapons to the
Ukronazis. That is really a non-news since they have been doing that for years already.
Furthermore, western made weapons won't make any difference, at least from a military point of
view, if only because it will always be much easier for Russia to send more weapons in any
category.
The real difference is a political one: shipping "lethal weapons" (as if some weapons were
not lethal!) is simply a green light to go on the attack. Let's hope that the Urkonazis will be
busy fighting each other and that their previous humiliating defeat will deter them from trying
again, but I consider a full-scale Urkonazi attack on the Donbass as quite likely.
Finally an opportunity comes to offer B and MoA commenters a nice little Christmas present,
courtesy of ZeroHedge who have in the past reposted some of B's articles on their site.
True, ZH reposted this priceless gift from Caitlin Johnstone's own site but she seems to
have given her permission for the reposting.
Why priceless? - well who doesn't want to see the ever smug Luke Harding and his idiotic
and baseless arguments about Russian intrigue and inteference in US and European politics
taken down in a well-deserved thrashing by Aaron Mate?
Priceless to read the transcript and priceless to watch.
Luke Harding gets exposed for the fraud he really is and in such a way then!
If b has time I think he should make a post just about that interview/harding because he
seems to fool alot of people with these claims he is making.
I did watch the Luke Harding interview, largely as a result of Caitlin Johnstone, who I
have enormous respect for. However, I do not do Twitter. Incidentally, Julian Assange of all
people, brilliantly exposed Luke Harding (and the Guardian) in 2015. You can smell the sense
of betrayal.
The key here is whether Russia will stop transit of gas via Ukraine or not.
Notable quotes:
"... A more far-reaching result from the Stockholm proceedings was the intention to void the traditional (Gazprom) formula for gas prices which is based on a linkage to the price of oil. Instead, the price of gas will be tied directly to the spot gas market such as the European hub. ..."
"... In traditional Gazprom contracts, the price of gas depends on the price of oil, and only up to 15% of the price is a spot gas component. For decades, this contractual linkage of the price of gas to oil was largely accepted as being open and fair. ..."
"... the Stockholm arbitration declared that Naftogaz must honor their contract, and buy from Gazprom 5 billion cubic meters of gas annually. As it turns out the "take or pay" clause remains in force, but the volume has been significantly reduced. ..."
"... The irony is that while this is a loss of face for Kiev politically, economically it benefits the Ukrainian consumer. To date, Ukraine's purchases of "reverse gas" from Europe has been far more expensive than that which was contracted reliably over the years by Gazprom. ..."
After 2014, Ukraine claimed that it was being overcharged, and therefore Naftogaz refused to
pay Gazprom their contracted price for gas. Instead, it paid unilaterally a different amount
that it subjectively considered "fair."
Gazprom, in keeping with mutually contracted terms and conditions, could only issue an
invoice for the resulting underpayment, and after Naftogaz still refused to pay (a debt of
approx. $2 billion), made any further deliveries of gas contingent on prepayment.
The arbitration additionally upheld Gazprom's position and denied Naftogaz any right to a
refund for gas priced between May 2011 and April 2014 or collect any of the claimed
"overcharged gas" totaling approximately $14 billion for that period. In sum, the price Kiev
claimed was "inflated" was judged as in Stockholm as baseless.
Therefore, the question of who is accountable and responsible for settling debt has been
clarified in Stockholm. Naftogaz must pay Gazprom $2 billion plus a fine calculated at 0.03%
per day for each day this debt remains unpaid. This fine has already reached $3 million since
the court decision on December 22nd, and if it not paid can reach an annualized figure of $216
million and still keep growing daily.
Like any political and economic story, there is quite a bit that does not make the flashy
headlines, but plays a role in contributing to the noise surrounding an issue. Naftogaz takes
satisfaction in that the settlement allowed that the gas price for the second quarter of 2014
was to be reduced from $485 to $352 per 1000 cubic meters, or 27%, thereby "saving" Ukraine
about $ 1.8 billion for 2014-2015. The price of $485 was in fact fixed for that one quarter,
and it was higher than the market price. The reason was that the March referendum and
subsequent reunification of Crimea within the Russian Federation happened then. Up until that
time, Russia had given Ukraine a discount of $100 per one thousand cubic meters of gas as
payment for renting the Crimean base for the Black Sea fleet. The Kharkov treaty with Ukraine
which dealt with the naval base was therefore canceled, as Crimea was once again Russia.
Without this discount, the price increased by that same discounted $100 in the contracted
quarterly price fix.
Key is Stockholm's recognition that the Russian gas price for Ukraine in 2011-2014 was fair,
which is much more important than the price fixed in that second quarter in question. It is
worth noting in the next third quarter of 2014 Gazprom was prepared to provide Ukraine with a
market price for gas again. However, as we all know today, since June 2014 Naftogaz has refused
to buy gas from Russia for political reasons and calling it an "aggressor nation."
A more far-reaching result from the Stockholm proceedings was the intention to void the
traditional (Gazprom) formula for gas prices which is based on a linkage to the price of oil.
Instead, the price of gas will be tied directly to the spot gas market such as the European
hub. Should this occur, then the future gas price for Ukraine will be linked to the cost of
fuel in the European hub. This would be a major departure from the traditional pricing Gazprom
has used for decades, and might set a precedent for other buyers of Russian gas, who might also
want to change their price formulation. In traditional Gazprom contracts, the price of gas
depends on the price of oil, and only up to 15% of the price is a spot gas component. For
decades, this contractual linkage of the price of gas to oil was largely accepted as being open
and fair.
Since 2014, Ukraine has been buying reverse gas from Europe at such European spot hub
prices, and it has so far been more expensive than the traditional Gazprom contract. It is also
worth noting that spot prices are far more volatile, are seasonally demand-affected, and as
winter is a peak consumption season the prices can and do increase dramatically.
Why did Gazprom take their initial large claims to court knowing beforehand that it would be
impossible to get the tens of billions of dollars from Naftogaz or Ukraine without ruining both
through default? The first reason is that a "take or pay" clause was a key and mutually agreed
covenant of the contractual relationship, not a point to be discarded unilaterally by any
single party. The second reason was as a response to Naftogaz multi-billion lawsuit on the
transit of gas from Russia through Ukraine to Europe. The Ukrainian side believes that Gazprom
should pay them extra for not sending 110 billion cubic meters of gas through pipelines
annually across Ukraine. In the transit contract, there is no obligation for any such volumes
to be transited through Ukraine's pipelines.
To sum up this drama, the Stockholm arbitration declared that Naftogaz must honor their
contract, and buy from Gazprom 5 billion cubic meters of gas annually. As it turns out the
"take or pay" clause remains in force, but the volume has been significantly reduced. How this
volume of 5 billion cubic meters was arrived at remains a mystery, but one which will surely
become clear over time. The political spin, however, will be interesting to observe since
Ukraine must now buy (and pay for) this Russian gas. How will Kiev explain now having to buy
Russian gas when since 2014 it stridently proclaimed it shall never buy fuel from "that
aggressor nation."
The irony is that while this is a loss of face for Kiev politically, economically it
benefits the Ukrainian consumer. To date, Ukraine's purchases of "reverse gas" from Europe has
been far more expensive than that which was contracted reliably over the years by Gazprom. Now
Kiev will have to find the funds to pay for Gazprom's gas, settle their debt and ever-growing
fines, plus meet the rest of their energy needs by purchasing expensive reverse gas from
Europe. It will take spin that is a lot more imaginative from Kiev to package this settlement
into a believable political victory, and very creative accounting to get the money to pay for
it.
"... The UK has been playing appalling, truly Machiavellian games all over the Middle East, and it has been doing it for centuries – in Palestine, in what is now Iraq and Kuwait, and in many other areas. To borrow from the colorful lexicon of the Prime Minister Lloyd George, it was reserving rights "to bomb those niggers", to bomb them and to fry them alive, to rob them of everything, even of the land itself. The UK, together with their close friends and allies such as Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, managed to manufacture the most conservative branch of Islam, just in order to keep the local population in fear and submission to its commercial and colonialist interests. ..."
"... The country responsible for hundreds of millions of dead, for tens of millions of human beings who have been hunted down like animals and shipped to America as slaves, has been reserving the right to judge the world, to decide what is 'free' and what is not, what is 'democratic' and what is dictatorial, what is true and what is false or even 'fake'. ..."
It has been all
very ugly, aggressive and often distinctly vulgar: the way the British Foreign Secretary has
behaved before and during his official visit to Moscow.
Mr. Johnson described Russia as "closed, nasty, militaristic and anti-democratic" concluding
that it could not be "business as usual".
He did not define what the UK has become, and the Russian hosts were too polite to
explain.
The "business as usual" it was not.
During the last few weeks, the behavior patterns of both the UK and US have began
increasingly to resemble those of the badly brought up leadership of the provincial Italian
mafia: "You do as we tell you, or we'll poke out your eyes or break your leg or perhaps we'll
kidnap your daughter".
It appears that there is absolutely no shame left in Washington, in London, and in several
other 'provincial capitals' of the Empire. Insults are piling on insults and then shot to all
corners of the globe. Lies are being spread barefacedly, and bizarre deceptions and
fabrications have been manufactured with impressive speed.
It is clear that the Empire is now missing its composure, its nerve; that it is scared of
losing its control over the world and its monopoly on deciding what should be universally
accepted as the truth.
The more the world realizes that it has been controlled and brutalized by shameless
neo-colonialist gangsters, the more the Empire says, indirectly but sometimes even straight
into the faces of the international community: "Our interests are what really matter! You will
behave and obey, or we will smash you to pieces, starve you to death, invade you and bathe your
land in blood".
It is nothing new, of course: the West has been doing all this for many decades and
centuries. Hundreds of millions of Asians, Africans, South Americans, Middle Easterners and
Russians lost their lives in the process. All non-white continents were occupied, plundered and
enslaved; all, without a single exception. But it was always done "for the good of the
victims", or "in order to protect them" (most likely from themselves).
The Brits were at the forefront of the art of manipulating the brains of their 'subjects'.
Their propaganda used to be refined, effective, some would even say 'brilliant'. For decades
after the end of the Second World War, they used to teach its offspring in North America and
Australia, how to lie elegantly and how to convince even those nations that were being
barbarically raped, that they were actually being rescued, pampered and made love to, gently
and respectfully.
Now the masks have fallen off, and the ugly, gangrenous face of imperialism has been clearly
exposed. Britain is simply not in the mood for refinements. It is brutal. It was always brutal.
Now it is also, finally, honest.
It is all absolutely frightening, but it is also good, truly significant, that the West is
suddenly behaving with such clarity.
*****
What is it that Mr. Johnson is accusing Russia of? Of liberating Syria from those Western,
Saudi, and Qatari backed terrorist groups? What else could be expected from the Foreign
Secretary of the country that had been, for long centuries, the mightiest, ruthless and the
most deceptive colonialist empire in the history of the mankind? Mr. Johnson is definitely not
going to thank the liberator of the oppressed people, is it?
In his open letter to Boris Johnson, the British writer and journalist Neil Clark wrote:
In April you canceled your planned visit to Moscow and traveled to the G7 talks instead,
where you urged other countries to consider fresh sanctions against Russia (and Syria),
saying that Vladimir Putin was "toxifying his image" by backing Assad.
But if Russia hadn't supported the Syrian government, ISIS/Al-Qaeda affiliates would
probably have taken control of the whole country. Is that what you wanted?
Of course it was! More chaos, the better!
The UK has been playing appalling, truly Machiavellian games all over the Middle East, and
it has been doing it for centuries – in Palestine, in what is now Iraq and Kuwait, and in
many other areas. To borrow from the colorful lexicon of the Prime Minister Lloyd George, it
was reserving rights "to bomb those niggers", to bomb them and to fry them alive, to rob them
of everything, even of the land itself. The UK, together with their close friends and allies
such as Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab, managed to manufacture the most conservative branch of
Islam, just in order to keep the local population in fear and submission to its commercial and
colonialist interests.
The country responsible for hundreds of millions of dead, for tens of millions of human
beings who have been hunted down like animals and shipped to America as slaves, has been
reserving the right to judge the world, to decide what is 'free' and what is not, what is
'democratic' and what is dictatorial, what is true and what is false or even 'fake'.
'Fake news' – the latest invention of the crumbling, paranoid Western regime!
Now the Empire is hunting down almost all 'alternative media' outlets, including the highly
successful and informative RT (Russia Today) international television channel. It is important
to remember and to understand: only the official Western channels and press agencies are
allowed to spread indoctrination all over the world. To broadcast or to print
'counter-propaganda' (or call it an intellectual detox) is considered an arch crime, and
punished as such. The RT is now portrayed as a hive of 'agents', at least in both Washington
and London.
*****
As the Syrian city of Aleppo was celebrating its first anniversary of liberation, grateful
citizens were carrying, in reverent silence, portraits of Russian soldiers who spilled their
blood for the liberation of their nation.
The Syrian people know, they clearly understand, who ignited the war, and who came to their
rescue.
Boris Johnson can insult Russia as much as he desires, but one thing he cannot deny: there
are no men, women and children carrying portraits of British soldiers, be it in Iraq or
Afghanistan, in Syria, Libya or Yemen.
In Yemen, the UK talks peace but manufactures bombs that are enriching the already deadly
Saudi arsenal of weapons, used to terrorize, and to murder thousands of defenseless Yemeni
civilians.
Russian Foreign Secretary Sergei Lavrov said nothing about the crimes against humanity that
are being committed by British troops in several parts of the world. I believe that he should
have said something, that he should have said a lot, but Mr. Lavrov is a seasoned diplomat, and
he knows perfectly well what is appropriate, what is effective and what is
counter-productive.
*****
Yes, the Empire is evidently in panic.
It is scared of everything: of public opinion all over the world, of the great Chinese new
Silk Road initiative which is gaining great popularity all over the Asian continent, of the
Sino-Russian alliance, of the silent rebellion in the ranks of its former allies, particularly
in Asia, of the undeniably increasing economic might of its adversaries, of the new
'alternative media', and even of its own tail lost somewhere in the darkness.
For many years, one effective way for the Empire to control the world was to spread dark
cynicism and nihilism, in order to 'pacify', to immobilize its colonies and even its own people
living in Europe and North America. Now this strategy is backfiring: British and North American
citizens are not only passive and unwilling to fight for the internationalist and left wing
ideals, they are also unimpressed, even disgusted with their own rulers and regime. Yes, most
of them are cynical about such countries like Russia, China or Venezuela, but they are also
cynical about the corporatism, capitalism, as well as Western domestic and foreign policy. They
are not willing to commit to anything. They trust nothing. They believe in very few things.
For the Empire, people like Boris Johnson are extremely useful buffoons: they offer cheap
entertainment to the masses, and they deliver it with impeccable upper-class English accents
(the BBC-style). They play it dirty, trying to smear, to humiliate their opponents. They try to
bring back pride to their imperialist and white supremacist regime, by humiliating the victims,
who are now finally standing on their feet and ready to fight for the right to be
different.
People like Mr. Johnson turn reality upside down, and it is all done 'spontaneously', with a
boyish, almost innocent grin. Except that there is actually absolutely nothing innocent in this
entire charade. It is all perfectly choreographed, all extremely professional.
*****
The Empire is rotting and it is in agony. It panics. It fights for its life.
Peace is dangerous. If the world is at peace, it is indisputable that the Western Empire
would lose, in no time. It would be defeated on social, moral, creative and even economic
fronts.
That is why the Empire is spreading chaos, fear, war, perpetual conflicts and antagonism
everywhere, all over the world: in Syria and Afghanistan, Libya, in all corners of Africa and
parts of Southeast Asia, in Iran, Central and South America, even in the tiniest countries of
Oceania.
It is challenging, provoking North Korea, it is insulting countries that have already
suffered more than enough from Western terror and barbarism; countries like Russia, China and
Iran.
It threatens those nations (and even some international organizations like UNESCO) that are
supporting Palestine.
It essentially bullies all those who want to live their own lives, their own cultures, and
their own economic and social systems. It punishes those countries that are refusing to plunder
their own people and resources in order to support the high-life of the Western nations. It
overthrows governments, and murders individuals.
*****
In Moscow, the British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson made a fool of himself. He did! With
his unmistakable spineless jellyfish style, he tried but failed to humiliate the nation, which,
for several centuries fought determinedly against Western imperialism and colonialism, and, on
numerous occasions has already managed to save the world.
Mr. Johnson applied an old and rather disgusting approach: he came to Russia with spite and
superiority complex, ready to preach, to insult, to scold those white-looking but essentially
Asian people – to 'show them their place'.
But this is 2017 now, not 1990. London is not the center of the universe, anymore, just the
capital of a confused and rather aggressive and increasingly badly behaved nation.
The British bulldog came to Moscow. Frankly, it did not even look like a bulldog, anymore
– it looked totally weird: stoned and mentally unbalanced. It barked and barked, while
the Russian bear was calm, maintaining its composure. It was clear who of the two has the upper
hand, and who is provoking and who is refusing to fight. It was also obvious who of the two is
really scared.
And, it was so apparent to whom belongs the past and to whom belongs the future!
An alternate view of Putin thanking the CIA for your consideration:
If the Kremlin hacked/tapped/bugged/infiltrated the CIA or a relevant third-party and
discovered the terrorist plot that way, might they not
signal to the CIA that Russia knows what the CIA is up to?
In other words, Putin was being sarcastic when he thanked the CIA.
The CIA knows very well that they did not intentionally alert the Kremlin to the terrorist
plot, so the CIA now has to ask, "how was this leaked and by whom?". The CIA had (*perhaps*)
told Israel, Saudi Arabia and MI6 of the imminent attack, and *before* the Kremlin learned
about it, so now the CIA has to question the wisdom of sharing information with those
parties.
Maybe Israel didn't accidentally leak the information to the Kremlin, but used it for a
quid pro quo.
Putin's "thank you" was one move in the great chess game?
Also, did the CIA merely have knowledge of the terrorist plot or did they participate at
some level?
One more ... terrorist groups must now rethink whether they can trust their CIA
masters.
The CIA knows very well that they did not intentionally alert the Kremlin to the terrorist
plot, so the CIA now has to ask, "how was this leaked and by whom?"
Stop, the anti trump bullshit just needs to stop. Terrible videos against him and his
family is so wrong. It's getting old and people are finally understanding!
You sound like a person that isn't open minded and is rather biased, leaning to the left.
You sound just like one of these schmucks like Colbert, Samantha Bee, Maher, etc. "Hating
Trump is not being liberal. It is being sane." Stfu.
These are the people who I constantly see in the trending section, all liberal propaganda
that of course you must enjoy watching. But yet there is also conservative channels that get
just as many views and likes but yet none of them are trending. You probably also believe
that Russia hacked the polls when there is no evidence what so ever.
So, I feel that no matter what I say to you, you will simply dismiss is it and just keep
on believing what you believe. Trump is just a puppet. You want someone to hate?
Why don't you hate the bankers like the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, and the Morgans who are
controlling this country and leading us to all these problems. They are the ones who make all
the decisions behind the curtains. Its just that the media doesn't like to talk about them
because the CIA controls what they want you to see and believe and the bankers control them.
If you don't go along with their agenda they will ruin your life. Just like they had JFK
murdered for not going with their agenda. Inform yourself please.
This country is going to shit and you're being led to believe that Trump is the problem
when the bankers are the ones fucking our government up. Once we get rid of them we can have
our country back.
"I am most interested in correcting a number of falsehoods, misstatements, and
misimpressions regarding allegations of collusion between Donald Trump, Trump associates, the
Trump Campaign and the Russian state," Stone writes in the opening statement he provided to The
Daily Caller.
WAIT! Didn't Debbie Washerwoman Shultz's long term, computer team from Pakistan just
get criminally charged with not only hacking over 30+ democrats in the House and possessing not
only the DNC files and all of Shultz files but also of selectively sending secure DNC and
congressional files to their own clandestine server, and then probably dispersing those files
to various foreign parties or the highest bidders?
WHEN THIS WAS UNCOVERED IN PART, THE
DEMOCRATS DESPERATELY COBBLED TOGETHER INFORMATION FROM A DOSSIER AND OTHER SOURCES AND ACCUSED
TRUMP AND HIS CAMPAIGN OF COLLUDING WITH RUSSIANS! DUH!!!!!!!!!sm
Well as long as this guy 'believes' it then I guess there's no need for evidence. Go
forth, subservient minions and spread the fake news based on a Trump advisors 'feelings'.
Because there's no incentive for a Trump advisor to say something negative about Democrats so
by all means, spread it as if it were true and if ANYONE asks for evidence or says you're wrong
don't you DARE give them any kind of evidence, or talk to them like they have a valid request-
just get mad, freak out, call them a 'libtard'
The email reveals that
the Senate committee has deemed anyone "of Russian nationality or Russian descent" relevant to
its investigation
, which means the
Russiagate
conspiracy theory
and accompanying congressional investigation has officially jumped straight from neo-McCarthyism –
smearing anyone that may have had contact with Russian government officials, diplomats or intelligence, and into xenophobia –
eyeing
any and all Russians or friends of Russians as a potential threat plain and simple
, which is far down the slippery slope
that many commentators have long predicted.
The American government has now gone full blown McCarthy.
The fact that Russia hating, progressive left news channel, The Young Turks, has uncovered and published
this bombshell email should concern all Russian Americans that the witch-hunt against Russia may now be
extended to US citizens, residents, and tourists in the United States
no evidence needed except
profiling based on Russian heritage.
The Young Turks Network (TYT), a popular progressive YouTube channel and news site,
has
obtained a bombshell internal email
related to the Senate committee probing alleged Russian
interference in the American political system, and though currently being covered in Russian media,
mainstream US media is passing it over without comment.
The email reveals that
the Senate committee has deemed anyone "of Russian nationality or
Russian descent" relevant to its investigation
, which means the
Russiagate
conspiracy theory
and accompanying congressional investigation has officially jumped straight from
neo-McCarthyism – smearing anyone that may have had contact with Russian government officials, diplomats
or intelligence, and into xenophobia –
eyeing any and all Russians or friends of Russians as a
potential threat plain and simple
, which is far down the slippery slope that many commentators
have long predicted.
Confident elite does not file such "amicus briefs". This is a sign of the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA. Frightened
elite now was to stigmatize the dissent.
Notable quotes:
"... The amicus brief purports to explain to the court how Russia deploys "active measures" that seek "to undermine confidence in democratic leaders and institutions; sow discord between the United States and its allies; discredit candidates for office perceived as hostile to the Kremlin; influence public opinion against U.S. military, economic and political programs; and create distrust or confusion over sources of information." ..."
"... Professor Lears also observed that as regards Russiagate, "In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s." ..."
"... In trying to accuse Trump the Deep State is using a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Guilt by Association". It's yet another sign of how desperate the Deep State is. How desperate are they? Read this and you might get the idea: https://voat.co/v/RepealSmithMundt/2240641 ..."
"... They are definitely desperate. Desperate people lose the ability to step back and observe how ridiculous their position is in context. ..."
"... Well, of course. Tailgunner Joe and all the rest of the commies-under-the-bed crowd. And its appeal is direct to all the bright younguns who've never lived through Cold War propaganda. Because they're trained to mindlessly howl at certain key words, 'racism' 'Nazi' 'homophobe' and the rest. Now they're being trained to howl at 'Russia'. ..."
"... Publishing any facts outside the official narrative is dangerous and criminal, because it might derail the training. ..."
In a new development, in early December, 14 former high-ranking US intelligence and national-security officials, including former
deputy secretary of state William Burns; former CIA director John Brennan; former director of national intelligence James Clapper;
and former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul (a longtime proponent of democracy promotion, which presumably includes free speech),
filed an amicus brief as part of the lawsuit.
The amicus brief purports to explain to the court how Russia deploys "active measures" that seek "to undermine confidence
in democratic leaders and institutions; sow discord between the United States and its allies; discredit candidates for office perceived
as hostile to the Kremlin; influence public opinion against U.S. military, economic and political programs; and create distrust or
confusion over sources of information."
The former officials portray the amicus brief as an offering of neutral ("Amici submit this brief on behalf of neither party")
expertise ("to offer the Court their broad perspective, informed by careers spent working inside the U.S. government").
The brief claims that Putin's Russia has not only "actively spread disinformation online in order to exploit racial, cultural
and political divisions across the country" but also "conducted cyber espionage operations to undermine faith in the U.S. democratic
process and, in the general election, influence the results against Secretary Hillary Clinton."
Much of this has been said before. But where the briefers branch off into new territory is in their attempt to characterize journalism
and political speech with which they disagree as acts of subversion on behalf of a foreign power.
According to the 14 former officials, Russia's active-measure campaign relies "on intermediaries or 'cut outs' inside a country,"
which are rather broadly defined as "political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies,
nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen."
Such "intermediaries" can range from "the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is his best interest,
to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced
to directly advance Russian operations and objectives."
In other words, a Russian "cut out" (or fifth columnist) can be defined as those "activists, academics, journalists, [or] web
operators" who dissent from the shared ideology of the 14 signatories of the amicus brief.
In a recent essay for the London Review of Books, the historian Jackson Lears observed that "the religion of the Russian hack
depends not on evidence but on ex cathedra pronouncements on the part of authoritative institutions and their overlords." And this
amicus brief is one such pronouncement.
In spite of the brief's high-flown language ("The threat posed to our democracy by Russian active measures campaigns is serious,
ongoing and will require vigilance on the part of the U.S. government and people"), it is little more than yet another effort to
stigmatize political speech that questions the necessity of demonizing Russia -- political speech, in other words, with which these
former high-ranking intelligence and national-security officials surely disagree.
Professor Lears also observed that as regards Russiagate, "In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation
of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s."
That is only too true; indeed, as of this writing, the Russia-Trump collusion narrative is fast devolving into an effort to stigmatize
and marginalize expressions of dissent, with the overarching aim of short-circuiting and stifling debate over US-Russia policy.
Knowledge is power, the truth will set you free. Background to "Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections":
The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution "Disclosures through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries."
Not only no forgeries, which means the emails told the truth about what these morons were doing, but also it's been demonstrated
that the emails could only have been downloaded to a thumb drive because of the speeds they were transmitted. Why these fucking
dimwits keep overlooking that inconvenient truth is anyone's guess, likely because it doesn't dovetail with their scenario of
a Russian hack. This lawsuit goes nowhere but is being used to slowdown and divert attention away from the crimes of the DNC,
et al.
It burns me that Brennan and Clapper, those two fucking traitorous cunts, filed a brief supporting this bullshit. Those 2 assholes
were running the illegal spy operation against Trump during his campaign.
"In a new development, in early December, 14 former high-ranking US intelligence and national-security officials, including
former deputy secretary of state William Burns ; former CIA director John Brennan ; former director of national intelligence
James Clapper ; and former ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul (a longtime proponent of democracy promotion, which presumably
includes free speech), filed an amicus brief as part of the lawsuit."
How revealing, the co-conspirators have filed an amicus brief ;-)
In trying to accuse Trump the Deep State is using a logical fallacy called "Begging the Question" a.k.a. "Guilt by Association".
It's yet another sign of how desperate the Deep State is. How desperate are they? Read this and you might get the idea:
https://voat.co/v/RepealSmithMundt/2240641
At the very minimum many high fliers who put on these Smith-Mundt hoaxes are going away for charity fraud. That's one reason
they're so desperate.
They are definitely desperate. Desperate people lose the ability to step back and observe how ridiculous their position
is in context. It's a bit like my wife when I tell her I'm not in the mood.. hehehehehe
"In its capacity to exclude dissent, it is like no other formation of mass opinion in my adult life, though it recalls
a few dim childhood memories of anti-communist hysteria during the early 1950s."
Well, of course. Tailgunner Joe and all the rest of the commies-under-the-bed crowd. And its appeal is direct to all the
bright younguns who've never lived through Cold War propaganda. Because they're trained to mindlessly howl at certain key words,
'racism' 'Nazi' 'homophobe' and the rest. Now they're being trained to howl at 'Russia'.
Publishing any facts outside the official narrative is dangerous and criminal, because it might derail the training.
They have violated their oaths of office and have conspired to over through the constitutionally elected President of the United
States. Instead of filing amicus brief they should be swinging from ropes.
Yeah true, but think of the Army of New Recruits/Converts if Trump had the foresight/Inclination to Drain that SWAMP . . .
. To have a modicum of credibility in my eyes he'd have to Deputize Deplorables to shoot these treasonous bastards in the face.
We see this thought pattern all over college and lower education now. People defending the right to censor and even criminalize
things they don't believe in and often enough these people have nice penalties for not bowing down to our betters...We've come
full circle back to King George the III and the American Revolution it seems..The founders had enough of this exact bullshit ...
All nonsense. The Russians wanted Hillary to win. She (and everybody else) was already bought and paid for after Uranium One.
John Brennan still needs to answer for Passport Gate and the murder of his employee, Lt. Quarles Harris Jr., in 2008 two weeks
before he was to testify. Brennan hacked the State department and tampered Obama's passport and was rewarded with the first post-election
appointment. Before there was Seth Rich there was 24 year old, Lt. Quarles Harris Jr.
Claptrap, Brennan . . . two warmongering Shadow Government Lackey's who should be in Orange Jumpsuits. 12 months on and NO
jail sentences. MoFo Puppet!
So nations participates in the witch hunt, because they do not like Trump. Nice... The level of degradation of the
remnants of US left is simply incredible.
And they cite "intelligence community conclusion" (a group of hacks personally selected by Brennan for hactchet job which, as
we now know, included Peter Strzok)
"... Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win ..."
"... Couple that with the intelligence community's conclusions about Russia's active-measures campaign, and the fact that, as both a candidate and as president, Trump has consistently staked out positions that perfectly align with Moscow's, and it's clear that this is all far from a partisan "witch hunt." ..."
"... I think this is a huge story. Without wanting to come across as hyperbolic, I think it's bigger than Watergate because this isn't one set of Americans doing dirty tricks to another set of Americans, as was the case back in the '70s. This is one set of Americans basically contracting with a powerful foreign power to help it cripple an opponent, Hillary Clinton. The stakes are much larger. ..."
Luke Harding's new book, Collusion:
Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win , doesn't claim
to have definitive proof that the Trump campaign conspired with Russia to win the election.
Still, Harding, who served as The Guardian 's Moscow bureau chief for four years
before being thrown out of the country for his critical reporting on Vladimir Putin's
government, presents a powerful case for Russian interference, and Trump campaign collusion, by
collecting years of reporting on Trump's connections to Russia and putting it all together in a
coherent narrative.
It's the sheer breadth of connections, many of them dating back 20 years or
more, between Trump and his associates and Russians with close ties to the Kremlin that put the
lie to Trump's repeated claims that he has no ties to Russia.
If all of these dealings were on
the up-and-up, Trump and his crew wouldn't have gone to such great lengths to obscure them. Couple that with the intelligence community's conclusions about Russia's active-measures
campaign, and the fact that, as both a candidate and as president, Trump has consistently
staked out positions that perfectly align with Moscow's, and it's clear that this is all far
from a partisan "witch hunt."
In an interview with The Nation , Harding was quick to acknowledge that there's a
lot that we don't know. "I think when it comes to following the money, we only have maybe 10 or
15 percent of the story," he said. "I think 85 percent of that story is still submerged."
Nonetheless, he says that what we do know so far is significant.
I think this is a huge story. Without wanting to come across as hyperbolic, I think it's
bigger than Watergate because this isn't one set of Americans doing dirty tricks to another
set of Americans, as was the case back in the '70s. This is one set of Americans basically
contracting with a powerful foreign power to help it cripple an opponent, Hillary Clinton.
The stakes are much larger.
I think [Vladimir] Putin has kind of done this quite cleverly. He's not some kind of evil
villain in a cave flipping red switches. He's essentially an opportunist who has very
adroitly taken advantage of problems in the West, and divisions in American society --
whether they're cultural or racial or political -- and he's sought to exploit and
instrumentalize them for his own purposes.
There are also really interesting questions about how far back Russia's relationship with
Donald Trump goes. One thing my book makes clear, or seeks to make clear, is that the
Russians play a very long game. They've been interested in Donald Trump for a very long
time.
"... Well, they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't. ..."
"... He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. ..."
"... Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser ..."
"... Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news. Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA stooge. ..."
"... Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding? ..."
"... Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA? ..."
"... In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read. When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part. ..."
"... Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border crossing with a Russian aid convoy ..."
"... Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a Russian tank. ..."
Luke Daniel Harding
(born 1968) studied English at University College, Oxford. While there he edited the student
newspaper Cherwell . He worked for The Sunday Correspondent , the Evening
Argus in Brighton and then the Daily Mail before joining The Guardian in
1996. He was the Guardian's Russia correspondent from 2007-11.
Aside from his more publicly known achievements, it's worth noting Harding was accused of plagiarism by Mark Ames and Yasha
Levine of the eXile for publishing an
article under his own name that lifted large passages almost verbatim from their work. The
Guardian allegedly redacted portions of Harding's article in response to these accusations.
According to his own testimony , Luke
Harding is the guy who realised he was in the siloviki cross hairs one day when, during his
stay in Moscow as the Guardian's bureau chief, he came home and found one of his bedroom
windows open.
A less situationally-aware person would have made the fatal mistake of thinking one of his
kids or his wife had done it, or he'd done it himself and just forgotten, or that his landlord
had popped in to air the rooms (a bit of a tendency in
Russia apparently). But Luke was sure none of his family had opened the window. So it
had to have been the FSB.
You see, Luke isn't confined as we are by the constraints of petty mundanity. That was why
it had been so clear to him, even
without any evidence , that the FSB had murdered Litvinenko. And that was why Luke took one
look at that open window and realised the entire Russian intelligence machine was out to get
him .
The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher:
take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had
vanished like ghosts.
And that was only the start of the vicious campaign that was to follow. Tapes were left in
his cassette deck, when he knew he hadn't put them there. An alarm clock went off when he knew
he hadn't set it. Luke was filled with " a feeling of horror, alarm, incredulity, bafflement
and a kind of cold rational rage."
Things developed rapidly. Luke went to visit a woman called Olga who warned him to take
care, because he was "an enemy of Putin." He was sure someone had hacked his email account.
Whenever he said the name "Berezovsky" his phone line would go dead, so he started using the
word "banana" instead. A person from the Russian president's office called and asked for his
mobile number. Unable to imagine a single good reason why a Russian government official would
need a cell phone number for the Guardian's Russia bureau chief, he refused.
That wily Putin wasn't going to catch him that easily. The game of cat and mouse had
begun.
A middle-aged woman with a bad haircut knocked at his door at 7am, and walked away when he
opened it. Had she just gone to the wrong door? Of course not, it was the FSB taunting him. At
the airport on his way back to London a man with a Russian accent (in Moscow!) tapped him on
the back and told him there was something wrong with his jacket. Noticing the man was wearing a
leather coat, which meant he must be from the KGB, Luke immediately rushed to the gents and
took off all his clothes to find the "bugging device" the man had planted on him. He didn't
find one, but that didn't mean it wasn't there.
When the Russian government launched its prosecution of Berezovsky for fraud, someone from
the FSB phoned Luke and asked him to come in and make a statement about the interview he'd
conducted with the man a short time before. They also advised him to bring a lawyer, which
seemed sinister to Luke. A man called Kuzmin interviewed him for 55 minutes. Luke got quite
thirsty, but wouldn't drink the fizzy water he was offered, because he was pretty sure it had
been tampered with. Surprisingly Kuzmin didn't interrogate him as expected, but Luke decided
this was because the FSB were trying to intimidate him. They probably didn't need to do an
interrogation, thought Luke, since they'd been breaking in to his flat almost every day for
like – ever , switching on his alarm clock and probably also bugging his
phone.
After the western-backed Georgian invasion of South Ossetia Luke was amazed to note there
was widespread antagonism toward western journalists in Moscow. And the FSB just would not
leave him alone. Worried by this "campaign of brutishness" he decided to keep a log of the
dreadful things they were doing. Reading this we find not only did they continue to regularly
open his windows, they once turned off his central heating, made phantom ringing sounds happen
in the middle of the night (Luke couldn't find where they were coming from), deleted a screen
saver from his computer and left a book by his bed about getting better orgasms.
All this would have broken a lesser man. But Luke didn't break. Maybe that's why in the end,
they knew they'd have to expel him like in the old Soviet days. Which is what they did. Well,
they didn't renew his accreditation, which is the same thing. They pretended it was because he
didn't have the right paperwork for an extended visa and offered him a short extension so his
kids could finish up at school. But Luke knew it was actually a Soviet-style expulsion. Because
Luke can always see the real game when most of us just can't.
He demanded to know if President Medvedev had been told – personally – that Luke
was going home. The person in the press department he was speaking to just sort of looked at
him and didn't say anything. Luke was pretty sure he worked for the FSB. So he went home, got on the lecture circuit and wrote a book all about his terrible
experiences in Vladimir Putin's neo-Stalinist hell. But just when he thought all his espionage
problems were over, they started
up again when he began his book about Edward Snowden.
This time it was the NSA, GCHQ and a host of other western agencies stalking him. The PTB
obviously realised that Luke's book would be much much more of a threat to national
security than even Snowden himself, and did everything they could to try to stop him writing
it. They followed him around (he knew they were agents because they had iPhones) and even used
spy technology to remote-delete sentences from his computer – while he was typing
them. Especially when he was writing mean things about the NSA. But after he typed "I don't
mind you reading my manuscript but I'd be grateful if you don't delete it", they realised
they'd met their match and stopped.
He wasn't sure if the culprits were NSA, GCHQ or a Russian hacker, but one thing it
definitely wasn't was a glitchy keyboard.
I mean that would just be stupid.
NOTE: In case any of our readers are (understandably) inclined to think we must be
making this up or exaggerating, we encourage them to read about it here and here
in Luke's own words. You'll find we have merely summarised them.
Yes, he really does believe everything attributed to him in this article. He really does
think the FSB were opening his windows. And he really did run to the public toilet and take all
his clothes off because a man tapped him on the back in an airport.
We also recommend you take in this opinion
piece by Julian Assange, and this one by a Brit ex-pat
in Moscow.
After that feel free to complete the following questionnaire:
Is Luke Harding: "the reporter Russia hated" an "enemy of Putin" a borderline psychotic
paranoiac, whose narcissistic delusions have been deliberately encouraged and exploited by an
intelligentsia that will use any old crap it can find to further its agenda a bit of a tosser
Luke Harding is indeed a piss-poor journalist. He is one of the reasons I gave up on the
Grauniad after 20 years; and I persuaded my siblings to look farther afield for real news.
Such an irrational man, unless of course you assume that he is not a hack but a low-level CIA
stooge.
The force once again fails to materialise for Luke as TheRealNews Aaron Maté sends him
scurrying back to his conspiracy theories safespace during this brutal interview on Luke's
latest fictional release titled "Collusion".
Luke Harding's article on Grozny and Chechnya is a classic of the sour grapes variety. "The once war-torn country has been transformed, but change has come at a price"
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2008/feb/22/russia To the best of my knowledge, Chechnya is still enjoying its peace and prosperity –
totally unsupportable.
You have to remember that without old Luke we'd not have as much fun reading pages like
this!!! That's likely the only positive outcome of what he writes but a very important one.
In this 'insane asylum' light relief coupled with 'some decent perspectives' is a god
send. For those that like this page / the humour you might like this site: http://ckm3.blogspot.co.uk/
So, the time has come. Surrounded by the KGB (they no longer exist Ed) Surrounded by the KGB
(they no longer exist!! Ed) i, Luke Harding pen this my last will and testament. For though
the end has come, (Hurrah! Ed) my enemies made one final mistake, by thinking they could take
me alive. They left me the Book, the noble karma sutra
No Walter Mitty I, I carry no arsenic pills about me for such a mournful deed as this. No, I,
a writer, a cavalier of the epistolary kind, shall use The Book they left me on my bedside
table, the noble Kama sutra. And now, gently removing the cellophane – to my children I
bequeath my writing talent, to Pussy Minor disturbance (here he seems to be attempting to
outwit the KGB Ed.) my gift for self promotion, and to my wife, Phoebe, my greatest
possession, my reputation. And now, gently removing the cellophane, (you see, phoebe, your
bootless cries at bedtime fell not on deaf ears, I will use it once, as I promised) and
turning the page, I see the very position with which to foil my enemies (who must almost be
upon me, for I heard the catflap flap) – "Chicken Butter pasanda, also known as the
headless chicken". (How ironic, Ed.) Like the chicken, my head also shall be hidden from
view. Here goes! England, though I never knew you (very true, Ed) perhaps you will vouchsafe
me a place among the poets? Here goes again! Butter? Tick. Dilate? Tick. Bloody hell, I never
realised I had such a big head! Push! Push! They shall not catch me alive!
Like a candle in the wind .oooff! I really shouldn't have had extra beans. England, I do it
for thee! But hold, what's this I see? Tracks? Caterpillar tracks? Tank tracks?!! My god!
Wait till Shaun sees these, it's the biggest scoop of all time! And it's mine! I must stop
this foolshness now. KGB, be damned! Maybe they'll now take me back at the Daily Mail. I must
remove my head from my .
(at this point, the recording ends Ed. he will be missed Ed the world will be a sadder place
Ed there will be less laughter in the world without him. Phew. Got it. Ed)
Being serious for a change, one has to ask: if Luke Harding is so lousy as a journalist, and
The Guardian had to pay some compensation to The eXile for plagiarising Mark Ames and another
guy's work, why didn't the paper send Harding back to journalism school to do an ethics
course, as The Independent had to do with Johann Hari when he was caught plagiarising other
work? Or why didn't The Guardian get rid of Harding?
Is LDH with The Guardian for the same reason that American news media like The New York
Times and The Washington Post among others always had someone in their offices who couldn't
spell or write to save their own lives, much less others' lives, but who rose up the ranks
quickly nevertheless – because they were really working for the CIA?
I ventured out the next morning. My laptop was in the unlocked safe. (It didn't contain any
secrets; merely a work in progress.) A tall American immediately accosted me. He suggested we
go sightseeing. He said his name was Chris. "Chris" had a short, military-style haircut, new
trainers, neatly pressed khaki shorts, and a sleek steel-grey T-shirt. He clearly spent time
in the gym. Tourist or spook? I thought spook.
I decided to go along with Chris's proposal: why didn't we spend a couple of hours
visiting Rio's Christ the Redeemer statue? Chris wanted to take my photo, buy me a beer, go
for dinner. I declined the beer and dinner, later texting my wife: "The CIA sent someone to
check me out. Their techniques as clumsy as Russians." She replied: "Really? WTF?"
Shortly before I was banned from Komment Macht Frei, Mr. Harding popped up in the CiF column
in which I had just made a comment ridiculing his "journalism" to state that he believed that
I am probably a member of the FSB.
Luke Harding is not a journalist; he is the perennial centrefold in an imaginary magazine
called "Smug Prick". There is an irreconcilable gap between the Luke Harding he sees in the
mirror and the chowderhead we all know and mock. The Guardian keeps him on because it does
not give a tin weasel why you read, just as long as you read. It does not care if you do so
with gritted teeth, murmuring obscenities.
In terms of honesty and journalistic integrity when it comes to geopolitics, he is simply the
worst journalist I've ever had the misfortune to read.
When the whole Ukraine thing started and the Guardian thought all their readers were
insular and stupid, they had our hero writing a whole slew of anti-Russia articles .alongside
opening their comments section. Bad "mistake" on their part.
It did not take long for readers to start pointing out the hilarious lies, half truths and
smears in Mr Harding's articles.
How did he/they respond ?
Not only did he start moderating comments himself, he (and Shaun Walker) had readers
banned for highlighting the "inconsistency" in their reporting. Ha! Good luck with that.
It was quite pitiful to see him yesterday on the Grauniad's 'Troll Factory' story
maoaning, whining and blaming the readers for not beliveing his "truthful" reporting on
Russia haha.
It's going to be fascinating to see how he and his pals report the upcoming battle in
Syria between Russia/Syria/Iran/China VS America/ISIS/Israel and Saudi Arabia.
"The dark symbolism of the open window in the children's bedroom was not hard to decipher:
take care, or your kids might just fall out. The men – I assume it was men – had
vanished like ghosts."
That there is just pure gold, it was written as a serious piece but even if it wasn't it
would still be brilliant piece of comedy and sarcasm, but the fact that it's unintentionally
funny and not a sarcasm is what makes it one of the greatest arrangements of words ever. Man
sees an open window and "deciphers" that it was secret agents who opened it for the whole
purpose of leaving him a "message" and then "vanished like ghosts". A whole script from an
open window. Perhaps next time they will make an offer he can't refuse? Brilliant sketch,
someone mentioned Inspector Clouseau in the comments but I have to say that Clouseau has
nothing on this level of deduction skills, self importance and delusions of grandeur, or
delusions in general. I read that thing many times now and its still hilarious as first time
"The dark symbolism of the open window .."
There is a video of Carl Sagan where he explains how not to do science and logic and uses
clouds on Venus as an example how to get a grand and completely wrong conclusion out of
nothing, now know as The Venutian Dinosaur Fallacy:
"I can't see a thing on the surface of Venus. Why not? Because it's covered with a dense
layer of clouds. Well, what are clouds made of? Water, of course. Therefore, Venus must have
an awful lot of water on it. Therefore, the surface must be wet. Well, if the surface is wet,
it's probably a swamp. If there's a swamp, there's ferns. If there's ferns, maybe there's
even dinosaurs. -Observation: we can't see a thing on Venus. Conclusion: dinosaurs."
I think that Harding perhaps gave us even better example.
Luke saw Russian tanks cross the border into Ukraine despite being 26 miles from the border
crossing with a Russian aid convoy. Despite there being a 5000 foot elevation between where he
actually was to where the border crossing was.Despite there being EU monitors at the border
crossing who did not see any tanks.When I pointed this out to Luke,as a comment on his
Guardian article,the article comments section disappeared and the placement of Russian tanks
at the border changed to a different border crossing.All of my previous comments were
purged,any other comments were moderated meaning an effectual ban and Luke carried on as if
nothing had happened.Something did happen,he stopped saying he personally saw Russian tanks
because he had been busted.In my opinion he is paid handsomely to post,anything,negative
against Russia and sometimes he just makes shit up when his wife needs a new kitchen
appliance.He is obviously a tosser to boot.
Actually it was that other bastion of serous journalism Shaun Walker who saw the invisible
invasion. Luke would be too scared of getting zapped by mind rays to get that close to a
Russian tank.
Yeah that was good old shaun. shaun also saw a Russian vehicle somewhere in ukraine with peacekeeping symbols from
Chechnya. there was actually a photo of that one. unfortunately it was impossible to verify where and when the photo was taken and no other
such vehicle with those markings has ever been seen before or since in ukraine. the woman who supposedly took the photo had a long history of photographing Russia
vehicles in Chechnya.
Luke wouldn't even have taken any photos of the Russian tanks. He would have thought the
tanks were sent after him and he would taken off like a rabbit. Even if the tanks were going
in the other direction.
BTW Luke's wife Phoebe Taplin (also a journalist) wrote a series of books about walking in
Moscow at different times of the year according to season and exploring the city's parks and
open spaces on foot while they were stationed there. Folks, make of that what you will.
I think he has survived as a journalist which is in a way commendable. However, he irritated
Glenn Greenwald, when he interviewed him because Glenn could see the details Luke was
interested in writing about were literally going to be the material for a book, and I think
Glenn had not finished his own at that point! So a bit exploitive to say the least. It's an
irony that the Snowden film produced/directed by Oliver Stone is going to be based on Luke's
version not Glenn, guess who gains financially for example.
On the other hand, you have to give him credit for foresight – moving from the Daily
Mail to the Guardian before it was fashionable. Maybe his talents alone explain the lack of
substantive difference between these two organs of State.
If I didn't know that Luke Harding was a journalist, I'd have thought he was a comedian in
the tradition of Peter Sellers overdoing Inspector Clouseau in too many Pink Panther sequels.
Mr Harding is a huge threat to the ruthless Russian government due to his fearless
journalism, but rather than off him with some polonium tea or crumpets they decided to leave
a sex manual by his bed.
Was the idea that Mr Harding would die from over exertion?
Even the sudden appearance of the Kama Sutra in English by the bedside table would have
aroused LDH's suspicions. What, he would have wondered, were the terrifying secrets encoded
in the manual?
But it is in the realm of foreign policy where the real perils seem to lie. President Trump
has been persuaded by his national security team to send Javelin anti-tank missiles to Ukraine,
for use against the tanks and armor of pro-Russian rebels in Donetsk and Luhansk.
Should Petro Poroshenko's Kiev regime reignite the war in his breakaway provinces bordering
Russia, Vladimir Putin is less likely to let him crush the rebels than to intervene with
superior forces and rout the Ukrainian army.
Trump's choice then? Accept defeat and humiliation for our "ally" -- or escalate and widen
the conflict with Russia.
Putin's interest in the Donbass, a part of the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union for
centuries, is obvious.
What, exactly, is ours -- to justify a showdown with Moscow?
In this city there is also a powerful propaganda push to have this country tear up the
nuclear deal John Kerry negotiated with Iran, and confront the Iranians in Syria, Iraq, Yemen
and the Persian Gulf.
... ... ...
The Korean War finished Truman. Vietnam finished LBJ. Reagan said putting Marines into
Lebanon was his worst mistake. Iraq cost Bush II both houses of Congress and his party the
presidency in 2008.
Should Trump become a war president, he'll likely become a one-term president.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, "Nixon's White House Wars: The Battles That
Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever."
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
"... I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk averse. ..."
"... Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim ..."
"... However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia hacking the election are fake news. ..."
"... As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored. ..."
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well
it makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections.
I accept your point that the Democrats and the Republicans are two sides of the same
coin, but it's important to understand that Putin is deeply conservative and very risk
averse.
Hillary Clinton may be a threat to Russia but she knows the "rules" and is very
predictable, while Trump doesn't know the rules and appears to act on a whim , so if
Putin were to have interfered in the 2016 presidential election, logic would suggest that he
would do so on Hillary Clinton's side. However, given the problems that Hillary Clinton
had to overcome to get elected, backing her against Trump would be risky. So the highly risk
averse Putin would logically stay out of the election entirely and all the claims of Russia
hacking the election are fake news.
As for the alleged media campaign, my response is "so what!". Western media, including
state-owned media, interferes around the world all the time so complaining about Russian
state-owned media doing the same is pure hypocrisy and should be ignored.
Colonel, FYI, our well informed, and, on top of it all, UN ambassador Nikki the bookkeeper,
is hoping for a newly independent island nation of "Binomo" rising from bottom of South China
Sea, and delivered by Santa to her huge Christmas tree in Guatemala. https://www.rt.com/news/414086-prank-nikki-haley-russia-place/
If this is true, then this is definitely a sophisticated false flag operation. Was malware Alperovich people injected specifically
designed to implicate Russians? In other words Crowdstrike=Fancy Bear
Images removed. For full content please thee the original source
One interesting corollary of this analysis is that installing Crowdstrike software is like inviting a wolf to guard your chicken.
If they are so dishonest you take enormous risks. That might be true for some other heavily advertized "intrusion prevention" toolkits.
So those criminals who use mistyped popular addresses or buy Google searches to drive lemmings to their site and then flash the screen
that they detected a virus on your computer a, please call provided number and for a small amount of money your virus will be removed
get a new more sinister life.
"... Disobedient Media outlines the DNC server cover-up evidenced in CrowdStrike malware infusion ..."
"... In the article, they claim to have just been working on eliminating the last of the hackers from the DNC's network during the past weekend (conveniently coinciding with Assange's statement and being an indirect admission that their Falcon software had failed to achieve it's stated capabilities at that time , assuming their statements were accurate) . ..."
"... To date, CrowdStrike has not been able to show how the malware had relayed any emails or accessed any mailboxes. They have also not responded to inquiries specifically asking for details about this. In fact, things have now been discovered that bring some of their malware discoveries into question. ..."
"... there is a reason to think Fancy Bear didn't start some of its activity until CrowdStrike had arrived at the DNC. CrowdStrike, in the indiciators of compromise they reported, identified three pieces of malware relating to Fancy Bear: ..."
"... They found that generally, in a lot of cases, malware developers didn't care to hide the compile times and that while implausible timestamps are used, it's rare that these use dates in the future. It's possible, but unlikely that one sample would have a postdated timestamp to coincide with their visit by mere chance but seems extremely unlikely to happen with two or more samples. Considering the dates of CrowdStrike's activities at the DNC coincide with the compile dates of two out of the three pieces of malware discovered and attributed to APT-28 (the other compiled approximately 2 weeks prior to their visit), the big question is: Did CrowdStrike plant some (or all) of the APT-28 malware? ..."
"... The IP address, according to those articles, was disabled in June 2015, eleven months before the DNC emails were acquired – meaning those IP addresses, in reality, had no involvement in the alleged hacking of the DNC. ..."
"... The fact that two out of three of the Fancy Bear malware samples identified were compiled on dates within the apparent five day period CrowdStrike were apparently at the DNC seems incredibly unlikely to have occurred by mere chance. ..."
"... That all three malware samples were compiled within ten days either side of their visit – makes it clear just how questionable the Fancy Bear malware discoveries were. ..."
Of course the DNC did not want to the FBI to investigate its "hacked servers". The plan was well underway to excuse Hillary's
pathetic election defeat to Trump, and
CrowdStrike would help out by planting evidence to pin on those evil "Russian hackers." Some would call this
entire DNC server hack an
"insurance policy."
If there is a smoking gun that proves that Trump is beholden to Russia, I want to know about
it. Having slogged through this book, though, I can tell you that the smoking gun is not here.
That is disappointing, because the cover of the book implies that proof of collusion will be
provided. Instead, the book provides a series of "it seemed as if something more was going on"
types of speculations. It also restates everything you already know about the alleged
scandal.
Some readers will be happy with this book -- primarily those who are already certain that
Trump is controlled by Russia, despite the lack of evidence to that effect. If you are a
liberal looking for confirmation bias, this book will make you nod knowingly.
Other readers should note that this book accepts the controversial "Russian dossier" about
Trump on face value, even though the dossier has been debunked by Newsweek, Bob Woodward, and
others, while the New York Times (embarrassed by initially treating the dossier as legitimate)
has called it "unsubstantiated." This book's perspective on the dossier is to the left of even
the New York Times. At one point, the book references the publication Mother Jones as a
mainstream news source -- that says everything you need to know about the author's political
slant.
This book is very deceptive! beware of confirmation bias!
I just got through reading this and I have to say if you are looking for a book with
nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with
VERIFIABLE lies from an operative that was hired by the Clintons, then this will be a delight
to read! This book will do nothing but reinforce your confirmation bias!
"... The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning. ..."
The New Zealand flagship National Radio channel recently played an interview of the above
mentioned plagiarist Luke Harding https://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player?audio_id=2018624819
It is interesting to compare the free ride he is given by the interviewer, Kim Hill,
noticeably anti-Russian, and the far more intelligent approach from Aaron Mate of the Real
News.
The irony of the NZ interviewer calling RT a Kremlin propaganda outlet while she works for a
state run broadcaster and promotes Harding's rubbish book is stunning.
"... Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you. Peace. ..."
"... Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated, Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6. ..."
"... I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies. ..."
"... Wait. Did he say Steele was involved in the Ukraine Coup? :)) ..."
"... A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation. ..."
How can this guy write a whole book about the "collusion" and not give a single clear
proof in the interview. He is a prime example of the Russiagate supporters. Good Job
Aaron!
Aaron is boss in this interview... damn I've watched 5 mins so far and this "author" has
shown himself already to be a complete tool. The only opportunist I see here is him cashing
in on this anti Russian craze that only serve the interests of Intel agencies and the
Democratic party insiders.
Well done interview Aaron. I want to see Trump go down, but we do need to have proof. That
is called justice. He may have colluded to get dirt on Hilary, just like Hilary getting dirt
on Obama and Trump as well but the outcome of our recent presidential election was the fault
of the DNC itself. If PROOF comes out on Trumps wrong doing, then that is when you write a
book about it. Not a book on trying to build a ridiculous connecting of the dots of similar
situations. Yes, looking at past history is important but to make a fabricated scenario is
irresponsible journalism. Until we have solid proof of actual tampering then we should do it
the right way. I agree that Israel had more collusion and tampering with Trump yet this
writer ignores that. Thank you Aaron for asking the real-questions. Much respect to you.
Peace.
Aaron Maté, you are gold. This so-called journalist was condescending and highly
unprofessional throughout the interview to point where he most likely cut the line because he
couldn't handle being interviewed by a real journalist and seeker of truth. His failure to
directly answer Aaron's questions regarding evidence of collusion show his inability to be
factual and impartial. The 'evidence' the author presents seems circumstantial at best and
unconvincing. Thank you, the Real News Network. Your high standard of journalism is always
appreciated by your loyal viewers.
I love you, Aaron. You and the Real New are one of the few who actually challenges this
ridiculous narrative. Trump is a horrible man but so is the rest of the US plutocracy. Making
him out as some sort of special sort of evil is pathetic. He wasn't hired because of the
Russians. He was hired because Americans cannot seem to understand that the changes they want
from the economic system here in this country will not happen if they exclusively use voting
as their change mechanism. Especially if they keep voting in the two fake opposition parties
for all positions. Also, Mr. Harding, we don't need to read your book. We've been hearing
this garbage through the mainstream media for over the last year. You are not providing
anything new or any actual proof.
Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "I was a Moscow correspondent for four
years!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "Trump is nice to Putin and rude to
other world leaders!" Aaron: "What evidence is there of this?" Luke: "What do you think
Russian spy agencies do all day if not spy? Huh?"
I despise Trump, but where the fuck is Harding's evidence for collusion? He responds to
direct questions with, "weeell..." and goes onto talking about obscure meetings with musical
producers or vague connections with Russian business men. Or, worse still, reminding us how
awful Putin is (what does that prove in regards to collusion?). And how dare he claim that
he's living in the "empirical world," when he can't substantiate his headline - collision.
Stunningly, he even suggests later on that skeptical people can't appreciate Putin! Cash-in,
little more. Good job, Aaron.
Luke is full of shit as he pushes hacking of the 2016 election. William Edward Binney[3]
is a former highly placed intelligence official with the United States National Security
Agency (NSA)[4] turned whistleblower who resigned on October 31, 2001, after more than 30
years with the agency. He was a high-profile critic of his former employers during the George
W. Bush administration, and later criticized the NSA's data collection policies during the
Barack Obama administration. In 2016, he said the U.S. intelligence community's assessment
that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election was false.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Binney_(U.S._intelligence_official)https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sv0-Lnv0d0khttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoeJeWfoSpQ
Aarons calm, but critical, questioning/demand for evidence is very refreshing. It has to
be very uncomfortable for a guest that is acustomed to mainstream neo-libs/con
journalists.
So this guy's whole body of evidence can be summarized as because Russia engages in
espionage then that proves the collusion? Great interview Aaron, he wasn't expecting you
to call out his bullshit, thought he didn't seemed at all phased by it. 10:30"I'm a story
teller." I think that sums this guy up pretty nicely.
Funny he lost his cool so fast and went into teacher mode, LOL! Good job interviewer this
is how "stories" get vetted no matter how favorable they are to you position. :o)
Watching this interview was like a breath of fresh air. You NEVER see a "journalist"
challenge their guests on network TV (probably because guests are pre-screened to fit the
prevailing orthodoxy). If we just had an army of Aarons doing the news, I think the world
would be in a lot better shape.
Good job, Aaron, thank you. It's not the first time I've been impressed by your objective
questioning and reasoning that may offend a guest but leads to the truth. Good, unbiased
journalism seems very rare these days
Bravo Aaron! This interview made me even happier I was able to scrounge up a few bucks to
throw your guys way recently. Harding seems a raging establishment shill, with his
connections and past (journalist based in Russia, big opposition fan, Oxford educated,
Guardian) I would be shocked if he isn't at the least friendly with Mi5/6.
And I wouldn't be
surprised if he had done work for them, which means he effectively still works for them (you
never leave the intelligence club, you keep getting fat wads of cash on occasion while
understanding that very bad things will happen if you turn on them). Again and again, he
presented arguments which were whole cloth bullshit, either 'facts' that were proven untrue
(like the bare-faced lie about Russian interference in the French elections) with laughable
ease by Aaron, or threw a word salad of tales of nefarious Russia being nefarious to somehow
'prove' something completely unrelated, that Russia got Trump elected with a bunch of random,
laughably tiny, obtuse efforts (a couple of ads on FB, some supposed Twitter trolls, RT,
Pokeman f-ing Go (!) ) which are all that has been openly claimed.
And there is NO REAL
EVIDENCE for that crap either, just the word of the always trustworthy spooks (a hand
selected group from 3 agencies, btw) and some heavily leaned on establishment toadies in
Silicon Valley. This book (I am guessing here- no, I have not nor will I waste my time
reading it) appears to be a disgusting cash grab on the level of 'What Happened?', selling
self-serving vacuous BS to credulous morons looking to feel better about the epic failure of
their disgusting, characterless idol. Also will undoubtedly be a big hit with the McCain wing
of right wing nuts, who have been itching for the fun of a REAL WAR (oh boy oh boy oh boy!
mass tank clashes in Poland! carrier battle groups attacking Vladivostok!!!) with the always
evil Reds... errr, Russians.
Disinformation trolls like this guy are willing to put in their
two cents toward making that happen. How the fuck they look themselves in the mirror,
especially if the have young people they care about, baffles me. But considering the Oxford
background and government connections, his kids sure as hell won't be digging a trench
frantically in ESTONIA (which I also have heard of, btw, you pompous, pompous puke). THANK
YOU REAL NEWS! MORE LIKE THIS PLEASE!! :)
this is another nothing burger by a member of the UK MSM this time who should know better
- Citing Chris Steele as a source for info is a complete joke - this guy needs to go back to
Journo school .
What a great debate by Aaron. Slapped that jackass so many times & revealed how
deceptive & outright false his position is. He has no evidence & is so
condescending/arrogant despite the baselessness of his position.
I find blinking isn't usually a good sign - I do think Trump has had Russian money, some
of it laundered, through his properties for decades and Russians probably have enough to
place pressure on him in the same way Hillary could be compromised by Uranium One, he might
have considerable debts owing. However Trump like Tillerson/Exxon and many others just want
to get into Russia and start doing deals.
They are over this Brezinzski like need to crush
Russia for all time that the deep state has got lined up.
I see Russiagate as a reverse Birther - Obama might be a US citizen but he grew up in Indonesia so lets give him shit for
it - All of Wall street has been taking Russian money for years, but if ur President? - so
now they can slowly dig up innuendo and possibly evidence of dodgy transactions all the while
minimizing Wikileaks and the systemic corruption it revealed - I think its mainly a
containment strategy while keeping Trump isolated and its working well but for people paying
attention we are seeing the system at work and what its capacities are, how much empty
propaganda can be pushed even after something like the Iraq war. Also part of a pattern with
past outlier presidencies where there is a concerted push to restrict them to one term and in
this case amplified by embedded Clinton allies.
A kitten trying to climb out of a wood chipper. This was not easy to watch. It bordered on
abuse. The assault on this conspiracy opportunist parasite was a fine example of real
investigative journalism. By publishing this nonsense and then agreeing to go on an interview
about it in public, he subjects himself to the most brutal humiliation.
Luke is part of the UK metropolitan liberal elite. Still in shock that HRC was rejected by
the US voters . Still in shock that UK deplorables voted for Brexit . His monumental
arrogance is such that he believes we were too stupid to understand the issues and therefore
were 'guided' by Russian propaganda. Aaron exposes Lukes lack of evidence
perfectly.
Kudos to Aaron Mate and the Real News for asking Harding serious questions; the upshot is
that this Harding character did not have shit to prove that Russia meddled with the US
election. Good job Aaron Mate and the Real News.
"... Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order to please his masters. ..."
"... As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. ..."
Tisdall's weekly spiel about the Evil Empire and its Dark Lord made many CiFers comment that he must report regularly to
Chatham House, London, at weekends for briefings, after which he'd knock out some good, blood-curdling copy about Russia in order
to please his masters.
I don't think that's far from the truth actually. As a matter of fact, I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and
Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at
university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain why Harding
is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British not-so-secret secret service, that they were
recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment to do their business of propagandizing. That might explain
why Harding is such a god awful journalist that has had on occasion to take recourse to a spot of cut and paste plagiarism.
The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies
from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British
not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same
time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald Trump. ..."
"... I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! ..."
"... DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to secure their systems and not click on phishing emails ..."
"... This seems like yet another attempt to divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been disproven ..."
"... I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending? ..."
Luke Harding has found it, finally! The real, complete, final proof of COLLUSION between
Donald Trump and the Russian government! Secret NSA intercepts, perhaps? Deep dark banking
secrets? Sorry, folks. It's just Donald, Jr's email exchange with private lawyer and
occasional Kremlin emissary Natalia Veselnitskaya. These emails have been picked through by
every media organization in the world by now (why? Because Don Jr. made them public, all
three of them), and they have all come up short. But for Harding, these emails finally gives
us "proof of collusion." And it took him 249 pages just to get to this point, after spinning
every looney-tunes conspiracy theory and crackpot allegation ever aired against Donald
Trump.
I call this the wouda-couda shouda school of pseudo-journalism, a crock pot spiced with
insinuation and allusion. At one point, Harding even wants us to believe that Donald Trump's
first wife, Ivana Zelnichova might have been a Czech spy! [p219]. As someone who has spent
the past thirty-five years as a war correspondent and investigative journalist, I find it a
bit disappointing to think that this is the best the Left has to offer. A more shoddy piece
of work I have rarely seen.
DNC CORRUPTION and GASLIGHTING
with the Steele dossier being bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton herself. The
knowledge that Hillary's emails were not stolen by Russian hackers but by DNCs failure to
secure their systems and not click on phishing emails.
This seems like yet another attempt to
divert blame from the guilty. Maybe Imran Awan should be asked, I bet he and his family have
some interesting stories to tell about what was really happening at the DNC. This book is
laughable, at best. None of the speculation within has been verified and has overall been
disproven.
I am perplexed that Harding's account doesn't appear to coincide with Steele's under-oath
court testimony. Was he lying to the courts or to this author? Can this book be used against
Steele in the various libel lawsuits he is defending?
The book contains nothing but conjecture and shaky circumstantial evidence built upon a "dossier" filled with verifiable lies
from an operative that was hired by the Clintons
I think many British "journalists" – Tisdall and Harding being prime examples thereof – primarily work for the British
not-so-secret secret service, that they were recruited at university and were slotted into journalist employment. But at the same
time he is so pathetic that this would be embarrassment for MI6 to cooperate with such bottom feeders.
Notable quotes:
"... Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"! ..."
The Problem With Espionage The purpose of espionage is to keep your opponent at a
disadvantage by cultivating an alternate reality in their mind that is different from the
facts. Whatever the government or agency they work for an agent wants to distort your
impressions of them and their own personal capabilities. All agents want you to believe that
they don't have the capabilities, contacts, or powers that they actually do posses. By the
same token secret agents want you to believe that they DO have capabilities, contacts, or
powers that they, in fact, do NOT have. When deception is such an integral part of the game
you are playing it makes sense to assume that you know less than you think you do. That's
what actual journalism is about -- particularly when dealing with spies and espionage. In
this video Aaron Mate' is acting like a real journalist. Luke Harding is not. "Real News" is
getting the story right. Thank you! We need more real journalism.
Luke is just a fucking story teller, and thats it! Making money off of a book, in the
middle of mass hysteria and group think! Great business move. I think ill write a book and
call it "Got Him, Donald Trump will Eventually Go Down"!
Imho, this guy's full of shit. Not quite ready for a 'Reynolds Wrap' hat, but seeing smoke
where there's mist. Takes me back to when there were definitely WMD's in Iraq. To TRN's
credit, they did give him a hearing. Which is more than the MSM gives to say, Chomsky or
Hedges.
He speaks Russian and has lived in Russia -- so I guess that settles it. LOL Maybe
somebody ought to ask Sarah Palin about it, since you can actually see Russia from parts of
Alaska. And the French intelligence report is inconclusive but if you get more context from
reading his book, you will see that it may be inconclusive but is actually conclusive. (It's
complicated.) And of course, he's lived in Berlin and he knows people there, so that proves
the German elections were hacked too. And only the most hidebound skeptic could fail to see
the smiley face connection. If you read his book you'll find out all this great context and
facts that prove the Russians did it. It's too bad he couldn't provide any of that for us in
this interview. (This whole thing has a sort of dog-ate-my-homework feel to it.)
The main question NOBODY'S been able to answer me is that "What policies has Trump
enacted, political, economic, military or otherwise, that benefits the interests of the
Russian state?" As far as I can tell, Trump is either indifferent to the interests of the
state of Russia, or is hostile, directly or indirectly, to them.
I tried really hard to follow this story as credible without prejudice and it was just a
bunch of babble without any evidence whatsoever.. this is just a re-print and re-title of the
Steel dossier updated with MSNBC and CNN reportage
This entire collusion scheme is occurring because the Democrats can't admit that Hillary
ran a horrible campaign and she's a murderer and a war criminal. I'm glad Mate is putting a
fire under Harding's arse and trying to make him accountable for these specious speculations.
I'm not a fan of either Putin or Trump, but this whole "scandal" has been little more than a
massive distraction. I've speculated that the entire election was a CIA psychological
operation to influence foreign policy to appease certain elements of the Deep
State.
I dislike Trump as much as the next man but when the Guardian publishes this BS it will
only bolster Trump when the lies dissolve over time and the facts eventually come out. Sadly
you might have never heard of Dr Udo Ulfkotte and his exposure that the CIA has an army of
journalists on its payroll, especially in Europe. So why are you not questioning the
integrity of this individual in more detail. These are the type of CIA and MI6 stooges that
Tony Blair used to promote the illegal war against Iraq. When this CIA stooge says,
08:25 "I
think that Russia played a role in last year's election is a matter of fact. This is only
what US intelligence agencies believe" he must be assuming the majority of the US population
are just ignorant fools. The US Intelligence agencies also believed Iraq had WMDs and the
British Intelligence believed Saddam was sourcing nuclear material from Africa. This
deceitful idiot Harding still pushes the idea the MI6 published Trump-Putin Dossier when it
has been shown it was paid for by the DNC. So would you believe any intelligence agency whose
motive is a push for war? And the best way to achieve this goal and have the misinformed
population back the corrupted corporate government would be to promote this BS from this
sleazy CIA puppet. If you get a chance, have a look at some other YouTube videos of the BS
this CIA journalist produces: "The KGB left a sex manual after breaking into my home" or
"Putin is Building an Empire" or the ever popular "Putin May Secretly Be One Of The World's
Richest Men". Then may I suggest you look at any story on Russia by the truth-tellers, the
whistleblowers that have actually been prosecuted for telling the truth in this fascist
system: William Binney, Thomas Drake, John Kiriakou, or Ray McGovern. So there will always be
some imbeciles that believe this fabrication just as there were some that believed the New
York Times and the Washington Post about the Bush-Blair Iraq War rhetoric when the oligarchs'
real intentions were so clearly stated by General Wesley Clark in his admission of "7
countries in 5 years". I am interested to know if TRN approached Harding or Harding was
offered up to TRN as a CIA stooge to spew their propaganda. It is sad to see the Guardian
employ such a hack; sure they are now a mouthpiece for the Empire but they have done some
good work over the years. It is clear that Harding writes to influence the apathetic and the
stupid; he conflates innuendo and supposition with fact in his attempt to distort perception
and for the imbecile with no intellectual honesty; this is very effective. I find it
frustrating that TRN attempts to expose this garbage when the oligarchs' MSM would lap it up.
You would never hear the BBC or Maddow questioning this MI6-CIA stooge like Aaron Maté
did. Aaron has done a competent job; not an effective job like one would expect from Paul Jay
at questioning this farce but sadly, this is the best TRN has to offer. There will always be
a number of scared and pathetic individuals within the population that will always be
incapable of differentiating between fact and fantasy or between truth and lies. These are
the Useful Idiots of Empire and they have been used to justify and instigate Imperial
aggression since the beginning of time.
Maté wiped the floor with Harding. It's also interesting that Harding appeared to
confuse Russian espionage with what is essentially Mossad-driven sexpionage when he mentioned
the "swallows." He seems woefully ill-informed when it comes to dual nationality,
Russian-Jewish mafia ties with Israel and Anglo-American foreign policy. This is also why
Trump has been encircled with Russian corporate interests to a certain degree - they are
connected to Russian-Israeli underworld objectives. Hence, the real conspiracy here is via
Israeli intelligence working through its traditional syanim in both Russia and the United
States.
This lunatic Harding is trying to sell USA and CIA as pillars of truth, democracy and
integrity, playing positive role in international affairs. How stupid and sold can a writer
get?!
I love how this guy keeps harping the point that Mate should have read his entire book.
This is so sad to watch, our media should be as critical as this, and this shows how far they
are from that.
Interviewer: "Your book is called Collusion. What evidence do you present for an act of
collusion?" Author: "Well, you see, Russians are bad and they do bad things, and you have to
see a pattern of bad things, and Trump is bad, so <waves hands> you know, context."
Interviewer: "I didn't hear any actual evidence there" Author: "Did you read my book? Because
I say stuff in there that suggests that my title is true. Also, go to Russia and ask
Russians, because you can trust them about what they have to say about the US election. Don't
listen to me, listen to them." At this point I'm wondering if the author read his own
book...
That guy had become unhinged by the end of the interview. This is the same behavior I've
seen from Russia-gaters when every talking point they bring up gets immediately debunked. I'm
surprised he didn't start ranting xenophobic nonsense about how the interviewer was also a
Russian agent. I've seen this conversation play out this way so many times over the past year
that the fact we're still talking about this is asinine.
This is Journalism. You need to answer the questions with hard evidence, facts, links and
ties. Names, Dates, Times these have to add up. Donate to The Real News!!
Seems Luke wasn't expecting a grilling from an outlet like the real news. He's probably
not used to a left-leaning American news outlet that tolerates dissenting opinions on the
Russia narrative. A sad reflection on what the atmosphere must be like at the Guardian.
Thanks again Aaron.
This is a great exchange between a believer of Russiagate and a sceptic. Both guys did a
great job pushing their arguments. Shame you don't see this on the msm. They're too busy
pushing their editorial lines instead of being challenged.
What is easier? Russia pulling off collusion OR Russia convincing idiots that they pulled
off collusion. I think that both have the same effect on delegitimizing our electoral
process, one is just a lot easier.
ALSO if the kgb is so good and so well trained at this then why is it so obvious? The
perfect crime is one that your enemy thinks you committed yet has no proof of, because
spoiler, you didn't commit it.
Thank you Aaron for being a JOURNALIST unlike the guy trying to well a book, why not every
body ids entitle to profit from a nation which from here seem to be populated by MORONS! The
Guardian lost its way back in 2001 by toeing the official White House Line, it asked very
little questions, it was very thick on speculation (a bit like this moron)!
This "author" or hack journalist is absolutely ignorant. Clearly he hates Russia and Puti.
And is just fine to create lies and stories. This was a great interview by Aaron! Excellent
job asking valid, intelligent questions and holding his feet (and fables) to the fire. People
creating and spreading this type of propaganda should all be held to the standards Aaron just
held this doofus to! When asked real questions, for proof of their statements of fact and
confronted with opposing information, you just get stuttering and the same old line of Putin
is bad so therefore my lies must be true! No proof yet people r still writing books and
profiting from spreading a very dangerous type of propaganda!
This is hilarious. Everytime TRN interviews anyone about the Russian case, they - the
interviewee - ends up being flustered, frustrated. I am waiting for that obscenities laden
outburst one of these interviews
Very good Aaron! Finally someone's called out the fabulilt Harding, arguably the worst
Anglophone reporter from Russia, and there's stiff competition.
I'm getting fed up with this shit. Trump just sent lethal weapons to Ukraine. This guy and
his administration have done nothing but escalate tensions with Russia since he took office.
Sanctions, banning RT, Syria strike, buzzing Russian jets, the latest Ukraine BS, that Obama
refused to do because it would escalate tensions. I wish this guy was Putin's puppet, but he
is more likely to give us a nuclear exchange with Russia.
It was the USSR until 1991, then the US Oligarchs pillages the New formed Russia.I don't
even think that Psychics would have fathomed Trump ever running for President 35+ years
later... Idiot....
Trump is crocked in my opinion, but who cares about my opinion--NO ONE. So why don't we
just wait for the evidence to come forward after the investigation. If he is guilty of
something then we will know. Clearly Mueller and his team is NOT going to put evidence out in
the public if indeed they do have something at this time. So everyone is just speculating,
BUT that does not mean the investigation should be over because SOME people feel there is
nothing there. That just does not make sense to me. Let the investigation conclude just like
they wanted it to conclude when Bill Clinton. By the way, he should read the book (not skim
it) and then get quotes to ask. The author is right to call out the interviewer for not
reading his book, but wants to talk about---the BOOK! Really?
Just what is the proof that Trump is Putin's puppet? Is it the NATO troops moving ever
eastward in Europe, holding war games on Russia's borders? Is it the extra billions earmarked
for nuclear war preparations? Or perhaps the US troops and bases illegally placed in Russia's
ally Syria? One has to be an idiot to believe this Russiagate nonsense.
Luke Harding is so full of shite, I'm surprised it's not oozing out of his pores. He says
nothing new in this interview he just rehashes the narrative. Intentionality? Luke is
obviously not used to being questioned on his storytelling.
This fella seems to be more interested in advertising his book than answering the
questions. These Guardian article writers may as well write for Daily Express or The Sun or
any other gutter press
I wonder if Luke Harding thought that doing this interview would sell a few copies of his
book. If so, he will be disappointed - he doesn't seem to be very knowledgeable, to say the
least.
this guy is pissed of with Putin, and thinks he knows everything just because he is a rich
boy from Oxbridge elite, yet this wanker has not a single fact supported with solid evidence.
That sums up the state of liberal fascists. Oh God!
Harding never voiced any proof or real evidence of collusion. Speculation, speculation,
speculation and inference. I'm so tired of this. And yes, Putin's not a nice guy.
The guy said go to Russia, meet Navalny (a man with less than 1% support)..lol. go to any
country on earth and meet the opposition and see if they will have anything positive to say
about the running government.. they are opposition for a reason... smh
I heard a really, disappointing softball interview on KCRW (NPR affiliate in LA) with this
same author where he was presenting correlations as causation and making the same broad
generalizations with nary a challenge from Warren Olney (who could be an excellent
interviewer) , but rather exclamations of approval. Aaron Mate on the other hand does a
fabulous job of showing the Emperor has no clothes. So, big big kudos to him for leaving this
fraud in a stumbling, stuttering pout of ineffective arguments. This author is at best making
a buck jumping on the Russian hysteria bandwagon, and at worst is part of a concerted
propaganda effort by those who would benefit from a new Cold War. One can oppose Trump for
not only his vulgarity but more importantly he does, policy-wise. Unfortunately, many of
those policies are the same or just a bit more radical than many of the politicians whose
style is less overly vulgar and divisive.
At the end Harding implies that definitive proof of collusion would be Trump and Putin in
a sauna. That would actually only be proof both men like a good steam.
Luke: There are only two honorable ways to respond to the charge of lack of proof for your
bold claims. 1. Point to proof 2. Admit there is no proof. Only a pathetic weasel with zero
intellectual integrity would take another course. After this interview I don't even believe
you know any Russian beyond "can I have the check please" Oh, and Hillary Clinton is a
deranged mad woman. Who else would laugh like a hyena about being accessory to Qaddafi's
gruesome murder?
Mate' is nobody's fool. This is what an interview should be, not a beaming love-fest
between "journalist" and guest. It's wonderful to see a strong journalist who's informed and
not rubber-stamping BS to crawl up the ass of someone with connections. You go, Aaron!!! Much
respect to RT.
Aaron. Probably the best journalistic interview that I have ever seen. Anyone watching
this will realise this collusion stuff is nonsense. And yes, i despise Trump and Putin's
corruption.
"The people who promote the "Russian influence" nonsense are political operatives or
hacks. Take for example Luke Harding of the Guardian who just published a book titled
Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win. He was taken
apart in a Real News interview (vid) about the book. The interviewer pointed out that there
is absolutely no evidence in the book to support its claims. When asked for any proof for his
assertion Harding defensively says that he is just "storytelling" - in other words: its
fiction. Harding earlier wrote a book about Edward Snowden which was a similar sham. Julian
Assange called it "a hack job in the purest sense of the term". Harding is also known as
plagiarizer. When he worked in Moscow he copied stories and passages from the now defunct
Exile, run by Matt Taibbi and Mark Ames. The Guardian had to publish an apology."
https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/12/27/from-snowden-russia-gate-cia-and-media.html
Thank you, Aaron, for convincingly exposing a shill for the Imperialist agenda and
committed cheerleader for the "deep state." Harding could do nothing more, in the face of
demands for evidence, than splutter endlessly on irrelevancies and assertions that the
Russians don't like us (gee, I wonder why not?!?!?). Excellent job Aaron: you are a credit to
true journalism.
This is the best video on the Russiagate conspiracy theory I have seen all year. I wish
people would remember that there is equal evidence that the US kills journalists; when you
hear people say that about other countries they're clearly propagandists.
That was awkward viewing.....but you can see why people like me in England went from
buying the guardian everyday to being dismayed to see the publication have such a skewed
agenda on politics that I now avoid clicking on their online articles. Basically the media
here is "London thinks this, so you should too"
Your sign off with a plug for the propagandist book, despite his abrupt fleeing of your
interview, was very civilised. Great job, I enjoyed the squirm and deflecting done by Luke. I
think he was well grilled by the time he left.
It should be acrime for so called Journalists to be allowed to propagate this abaloute
disgraceful nonsense. The guy is talking about 1987 - a single time Trump visited Russia
during the 80's. Next time he wsa there was about 5 years ago for miss universe contest. Yet
this is evidence or him being a Russian puppet. Total nonsense! No, this is communists
realizing Trump is a sledgehammer to their narrative. They are looking at political
wilderness across the west if Trump can do what he wants to do so in desperation they attempt
to drag out anything they can to keep their bs narrative going even going back almost 30
years...
Just to be clear: Russia hacked both DNC and Macron emails, and released them, mixed with
false information, in a disinformation campaign. The DNC emails became source of conspiracy
on facebook. Macron emails were never allowed to be published in any form.
When subjected to some skepticism, Harding's assertions collapse into vague "because the
intel agencies told us" nonsense. Hats off to Aaron for knocking down the Russia hysteria
once again.
Pretty embarrassing interview with this British guy... When he gives that snarky "oh too
bad you didnt read the book.." line i really wanted to hear the interveiwer say "Oh its
really too bad you didnt think to memorize one fact about the subject your being interveiwed
about..."
Now he leans on whether Aaron has read the whole book or not. I know I won't read it, as
the man as not said a convincing word in the entire interview.
Russiagate is a conspiracy theory. Let's be frank. It presupposes it's conclusion and
finds circumstantial and hearsay evidence to support it. "Collusion-rejectionist" Mate points
this out time and time again (not only to this guy) and this guy says 'go talk to people; the
russians do things this way; everybody knows; you are a fringe character for not agreeing' -
it just doesn't hold water. No doubt Trump has shady deals with Russians among others. The
idea that such a buffoon been cultivated since the mid-80s by the KGB as a Manchurian
Candidate wouldn't make for a plausible pop spy thriller plot - maybe a good satire of one,
however.
Omg this was fun. Btw, we can all agree that Pyutin made Luke to wrote that idiotic book
just to toss a doubt how he did not collude with Tryump, because there's no limit of his
cunningness.
Luke's stories, just like the whole collusion theme, is a nothing burger left out of the
fridge too long. So now it stinks and needs to be thrown in the garbage where it
belongs.
He probably published the book half cooked just for the best timing of the sale. Maybe
they need a better guests? This doesn't prove anything that Trump is clear of the
allegation.. Far from it. Probe will continue.
Crappiest interview ever. You don't read the book and then you spout your pre-conceived
notions of the its subject matter. Cherry on top, with a pro-Trump bias.
He obviously didn't bother to read the book , why bother to interview the guy ? They are
talking past each other , if he had read the book they could have had a descent debate . This
is as bad a Fox News segment . Terrible .
This clown only response is to stammer and stutter until the regurgitated corporate
propaganda eventually spews out of his mouth with very very little confidence lol
This conspiracist has not listened to Putin speak. If he had, he would not be painting
such a one-dimensional, comic book character of him. Can we please move on from such naively
simplistic analyses of global power structures? Any leader unable to manage Intelligence is
at the mercy of a Deep State -- as we have learned time and again in the US. Before
cheerleading for World War, start by watching some of the hours and hours of footage showing
Putin engaging deeply with citizens and world leaders. Try critiquing that. Maybe learn some
history.
In watching the video interview it is obvious this 'Journalist' has his own Personal
Agenda regarding Putin and wants to get Putin any which way he can even if it means lying to
the America People. He is no true journalist. Great Interviewer!
The more I hear "experts" push this stupid Russia-phobic conspiracy theory the less I
believe it...This is why I like the Real news and you're worth supporting. You haven't fallen
for the mainstream narrative... There are many legitimise things to criticise Trump on. The
Trump-Russia conspiracy theory is NOT one of them.
Opposition Research on oligarch Hillary and Don Jr goes to find out what they've got.
That's it? We already know that the DNC emails were an inside job and subsequent DNC coverup
to blame Russia. We KNOW that (see VIPs report on consortium.) Stop blaming Russia! Luke
Harding is a delusional red-baiting Russophobe. Were I the Guardian, I would sack him! He's
an embarrassment! Don't buy his book!
Hillary's rush to threaten military action toward Russia over leaked/hacked DNC e-mails,
which simply exposed some of their corruption during the Democratic primary process, likely
did more to further harm her chances in the general election than any memes or any efforts by
anybody else. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz_dZ2SlPgw
aaron mate! thank you for putting this Guardian hack into account! brilliant stuff! once
more the Real News is exceeding my expectations, this was superb journalism and holding the
media gatekeepers an extension of the establishment into account.
Luke kinda had his mind made up prior to setting up this interview. Russian collusion?
IDK, but let's just see what turns up. Mueller's already indicted some people. The issue with
the Russia investigation is the excitement over it on both sides. Everyone needs to just lay
back and let it happen regardless of how you feel. Close your eyes and think of England, and
maybe something comes out of it. I would rather we were investigating how we got into Iraq
and the abuses that happened after we invaded, but no one should be opposed to an
investigation where people have already been indicted. Media pushing the war with Russia
narrative are being silly, but the same with media saying we shouldn't investigate anything
about this. ON the left we also shouldn't expect too much to come from this. Great if we can
use this investigation to get Trump out of office for something; if not, useful political
theater if the Dems would just recognize the importance of that.
How fair to give him a platform. Will you invite Alex Jones next? How about some flat
earthers? ahh right, it's only ok when it's mainstream conspiracy theory, sorry, totally
forgot
Aaron challenges Russia assertion : Guy goes onto tell some story how he lived there and
he just knows "Believe him" Because he lived in Russia for 4 years... ??????????? Goes to
assert further... Aaron responds.. "proof" Response to that "Well the history from the
1970's.... " PROOOOOF?!?!?!?!?!?!?!? Look. I am fine with the fact that Russia might have
interfered with the election. JUST GIVE ME SOME FUCKING PROOF. Until then? Fuck off... There
are real problems to deal with.
LOL I loved Mate's performance in this interview. He totally flipped the script on this
crackpot realist. He felt like a dissenting person feels on MSM, if they ever bother to have
one on.
Telling how this "person" being interviewed spouts of a word like empirical when it comes
to an accusation with no supporting evidence so to him if you are accused of something that
in itself is empirical evidence?=horse shit propagandist no offense to horses. He first won't
accept there is no proof but when asked what the proof is he starts talking about his
personal feelings as if they are proof(superiority complex).
So? The "real" news is now doing book-promos? Shame on you - this is unmitigated garbage.
(edit: after watching the whole article, I'm still not satisfied. The problem with a public
"hatchet-job" is you give oxygen to your "victim" and get seen with a hatchet in your hand.
That does not look good. And in your victim's dying breaths, he will plant a curse on you via
those who saw you with the hatchet. Sun Tzu warns us to not give your enemy no-way-out ..
your forces are no match to those fighting for their very lives. It is abundantly clear from
the actual evidence that the 2016 election was willfully lost by Hillary Clinton, not won by
Trump. This is a result of Clinton being high in the cluster-B spectrum -she gets sexual
pleasure from torture and ugly death [Qaddafi] - whereas, Trump is lower on the spectrum: not
a sociopath/psychopath, but clearly a narcissist bordering on malignant. And I pause to add
that probably ALL global leaders are on the cluster-B spectrum of personality disorder. The
thing you have to know about cluster-B in this context, is that those within the cluster-B
are outside of normal social influence, such as "honey-traps" etc, because they lack the
compassion link to empathy - i.e. they do not respond to the tools which work on healthy
humans and tend to only respond to their own "world-view" in which the entire universe is
composed of themselves. Next: I tried to influence the US election by donating to Sanders -
so who is investigating the Australian "collusion" .. gimme a break - we all wanted Sanders.
Clinton gave us the choice of a sociopath against a narcissist - and we chose the narcissist.
And there he is doing the work he was made to do - to destroy the entire world-order so we
can, at least, start over. With Clinton - we all knew - it was lights-out for all of us. At
least with trump, the game is still in play. The lesser of evils. SO stop giving gas to the
commercial-distractionists - they are remnants of the lights-out brigade who are eating,
drinking, and being merry, because tomorrow, they intend to die .. the self-condemned. And
none of them asked me, or any of the others who would like to see life continue. The whole
thing disgusts me - dust your feet and leave the show - the finale is not worth sticking
around for.)
PS: NSA is currently monitoring, downloading and repeatedly viewing some of our children
for "security reason" ... Youth who are legally earning a living in the US as porn stars on
the net in order to eat, get an education pay student loan debt and survive in a nation which
gives little F about providing the true security realized via the the provision of privacy,
organic food from local heritage seed, pure potable H2O, clean air, access to free Integrated
Medicine, free and equal education and a comfortable roof over their heads, NOT based on how
much potential they have to move money for the corporatist-elite or the ethnicity of their
forefathers. How low will, WE stoop? @TheRealNews Pathetic
Aaron Mate that was absolutely BRILLIANT!!! You picked his bullshit story apart. Another
journalist making money on Russiagate. I can't believe I called him a journalist. Bill Binney
has already solved the hacking issue....lets move on. Awesome interview. Keep up the great
work...I bow to you.
I've never heard of the interviewer needing to read the book before interviewing the
author? Isn't it the author's "job" to plug his own book and inform the viewers of its
contents? It's really obvious that Harding had nothing to counter with- it was awkward to
watch as his Russian gate conspiracy fell to shit. Great job Mate!
Ugh. Another opportunistic "journalist" trying to capitalize on Russia panic (PUTIN!).
Great interview. You gave him plenty of time and room to make his case, and he just couldn't
seem to defend his position.
The Guardian was once a respectable news outlet. It both saddens and angers me that
journalists such as Luke Harding and Shaun Walker, neither of whom seem to have any real
grasp on the subjects they cover, are touted by The Guardian as leading experts on Putin and
Russia. Almost as embarrassing as anger-making.
Sadly typical of what the Guardian has become. This reminds me why I can't read it
anymore, just too much bullshit and innuendo sold off as fact. Good work, Aaron.
Aaron: "Are you inferring that because two Russians used a smiley face that's proof that
Manafort's associate was a tool of the Russian government?" 20:23 . HaHaHa!!! I don't miss
Louis CK anymore. This is the goddamn funniest shit ever!
Donald Trump just authorized the sale of sophisticated weapons to Ukraine. This ensures
that fighting will intensify on Russia's border. We can thank Russia conspiracy theorists
like Rachel Maddow, Marcy Wheeler and Luke Harding for providing a media environment that
enabled/pushed Trump to move in this direction. Mission accomplished, propagandists! World
War 3 in 2018?
the only collusion i saw in 2016 was rothschild zionazis, saudi arabia, isis, israhell,Fox
msnbc cnn trump, and clinton against bernie sanders and the people
''Kind of, sort of....air quotes...sort of...'' If Trump colluded with anyone it was
Netanyahu and other ultra nationalist Zionists inside Washington and Tel Aviv. It certainly
is not in the interests of America to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And who
is Gerard Kushner batting for? America...or Israel?
This Harding hack is a perfect example of why The Guardian - a once proudly liberal
publication - has become another neoliberal propaganda rag. He also wrote articles cheering
ISIL in Syria, literally comparing them to the Republican Brigade who went to Spain to fight
against the Franco Fascists in Spain in the 1930s.
No, "you don't have to just take a look", this is more BULLSHIT for book sales. No way
Russia colluded in the election, no hacking either. This Russia story was thought up by
Podesta back in 2015. Peace
"I'm a writer & I once lived in Russia so I have to be right!" AND he says, "I'm a
storyteller." Well, that's the problem. Storytelling is also a synonym for lying.
That so-called journalist was so obviously bereft of facts and wore his blatant biases
proudly. That kind of crap might play well on MSM shows, but doesn't work very well with a
well-informed and neutral interviewer. Well done. "Collusion"? Maybe "My Cold War Fantasy
World" would have been a better title for his book.
Excellent interviewer, disappointing interviewee. Harding's red herrings, guilt by
association, appeals to "context," and repeated well-poisoning do not constitute
*evidence*.
It is because of these journalists is why I believe journalism is no longer a professional
of finding and presenting the truth. It's more of floating around a narrative to serve the
interests of their masters
The disturbing thing about this interview is Luke Harding not only is unable to respond to
Aaron's request for evidence but he doesn't even seem to understand that his conclusions are
based on surmise and implications gleamed from irrelevant material. I have to assume Harding
has had some education in the journalistic rules of evidence, at least enough to land a
prestigious job with the Guardian. And yet he is not only unable to submit forensic evidence
of collusion between Trump and Putin but he doesn't seem to understand what would be required
to actually identify that evidence to make his case. I have to assume the book only relies on
inference and innuendo to establish its case: Putin is a bad man who will resort to anything
to achieve his ends, hence he is guilty of resorting to any means to influence a Trump
victory. This kind of "evidence" only goes to motivation and says nothing about ability or
opportunity. (two of the three linchpins of circumstantial evidence. Of course this kind of
shoddy thinking is nearly endemic today among not only journalists and pundits, who ought to
know better, but also among the general public (most of my friends in particular). This
epidemic is so vast and persistent that I am afraid it will only be staunched by a
thermonuclear war. "We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and
then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we
were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time:
the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality,
usually on a battlefield." George Orwell
This guy is Mr Word Salad, Aaron really twists his balls in the best possible way. What a
pathetic shill, you can tell this idiot works for the Guardian. "Where is the evidence of
collusion?" "Putin is bad." "Yes but where is the evidence?" "Estonia, France, my friends
died, Putin is bad." "Where's the evidence?" "Putin is bad." Idiot.
It's ironic that Mate presents himself (by virtue of the association implied with Real
News) as somehow different from the (again implied) not-so-real news and then pursues a
pretty familiar "gotcha" approach to this interview. Mate appears more interested in proving
himself correct with his skepticism rather than at all curious about the author's point of
view as it applies to his work. This is more of the Same News I think. Or at least the same
games that talking heads favour. Mate, in addition, seems very amused with himself. That's
hardly productive to anyone interested in learning something about the author or the author's
premise.
I love how Aaron is making this guy squirm with simple, logical questions. Taking the
guest's own advice, he should venture out into the reality world out of his book's bubble.
The icing on the cake is when the guest starts (around 8 minute mark) flailing his arms like
a monkey in a zoo, to the delight of children observing the animal.
No offense to my Estonian friends, but Harding using them as an example of the broader
hacking trend seems bullshitty to me. I don't think any leftists skeptical of the Russiagate
narrative would say that Russia doesn't hack, or Russia doesn't attempt to influence foreign
elections. But if you're going to say that Russia has the capacity to do it in the USA,
showing they did it in France or Germany would be a decent analog, Estonia (formerly occupied
by the USSR and in Russia's sphere of geopolitical influence) is not. Am I missing
something?
It is NOT about Donald Trump. It is about USA and the foundational principles of our
democracy. IF there is even a small chance that the formation of our government is influenced
by the forces from a hostile nation, this IS the problem. Go to hell Aaron Mate. Idiot Aaron,
go to Russia and meet and the HR activists and see what the country is truly like before you
interview, mofo idiot Aaron Mate
Even if Putin directly helped trump get elected using his own personal computer, these ppl
are gonna fuck up proving it up tripping all over themselves with adolescent anticipation and
opportunism
Sounds like the Brits are stirring the pot, bringing the Russian 'axis of evil' back into
the mix. Think.. Did we ever have US sovereignty? What really happened back in 1775? Maybe
the US is just the military arm of the UK and is still hell bent on achieving global
domination after all. And the US has been annexed by them all along. Why else is this Brit
demanding that the Russians are still a cold war enemy when Trump obviously has nothing
against them? I'm having serious questions as to the strategic alliance and geopolitical
relationship we have with Britain because of this guy's views. That being said, there may
well have been collusion by the Russians to help Trump get into office. But that alone, still
doesn't prove Russia the 'axis of evil' or anything near to being our enemy. It's about
global domination. The NWO remember? The Brits/Rothschild banking cartel have been hell bent
for it for centuries. Russia? Not so much.
Mr. Harding is definitely having a hard time finding any collusion and he wrote the book
on it!? Instead of addressing our unfair, closed and black box elections we waste time on a
guy who can't seem to form a coherent sentence!?
Although there may have been collusion, Russia did not help Trump win. Hillary's record
helped Trump win. After learning of her speech to Wall st., it made it impossible for me to
vote for her. How dare she tell them one story and tell us what she thinks we want to
hear.
great interview Aaron, i also am very skeptical of the whole "Russia did it" meme. great
job asking for proof, i didnt hear any either, color me not impressed with the interviewee or
his hypothesis,
Manafort was a recommendation of Roger Stone, friend of Trump. Manafort and Stone had
companies together since the eighties. Harding doesn't know what he is talking
about.
Wow, a real journalist. MSM would have covered this conspiracy theory as absolute truth.
No questions asked, which is why nobody trusts them. Harding has nothing but speculation and
an obvious bias. I wonder who paid him to write the book.
Ooh this Harding dude was squirming in his shoes. At the end, very sweatie, voice is
cracking. It's impressive how he's able to lie for so long but he stayed consistent with his
questioning
Given Harding's long chain of illogical arguments in this interview, I suspect his four
year stint in Russia was heavily influenced by Russian vodka, from which he has yet to
recover.
That included a lot of criticism of Russia and Putin for a supposed Russian controlled new
out let. Again, there is no direct evidence of collusion and no evidence that Russia cost
Clinton the election
The guy's got nothing. I'd love to see some real proof but this guy is equivocating at
every turn. Re: the "France hacks" he says it was "inconclusive" but due to a laundry list of
unrelated other examples of Russians possibly doing some nefarious stuff he's willing to
accept it as a fact. That is not what I would call "empirical." "Muckraking" would be a
better term...
this poor conspiracy author was depthcharged by this artfull and rather demeaning
interviewer. it demonstrates the need to be able to back claims unless they are presented as
theories. I have not read this book but apparently claims were made as"common knowledge" that
could not be supported by "empiracle data". this also points out why no massive claims have
been announced by Mueller's team. all conclusions must be backed by solid data. I believe one
would be naive to conclude anything from this interview except that claims made in this book
are not supported by accepteddata -- yet.
Much like the circular arguments put forth by the pro Hillary anti Stein people. No matter
how much you request the EVIDENCE they keep repeating suspicion, someone said, everyone
knows....and CANNOT produce any evidence....and do not understand how that type of response
is acutely reminiscent of Joe McCarthy waving of the paper with those names...one never gots
to see.
On the allegation of Russian meddling in the French election, if I remember correctly, it
was not Putin who cut a campaign video ad for one of the candidates, I remember correctly, it
was Obama who cut a campaign ad for the French Candidate who won.
The reason mainstream media focuses on Russia is because of ratings but it is a huge
nothing burger. No proof no real connections and all the "smoking guns" turned out to be
cigarette lighters and the lamestream never retracts it or anything just goes on like all is
well. Good to see some journalistic integrity. The author was making a leap from "He's a
repressive dictator ao he must be guilty" with no evidence at all.
Excellent interview Aaron. Crushed it. Your guest has 28 minutes to make at least one
salient point and he is unable to do that. Wow! However, I wouldn't hold my breath waiting
for the next Russiagate shill to consent to an interview with you though Aaron. Just saying!
:) :) PS - Oh, darn, I forgot and gave you the secret code of two Emoji smilies!
Drats!
Luke Harding talks like he presumes all the rest of us just fell off the turnip truck 10
minutes ago. Uh... yeah dude... we DO know the history of the KGB and FSB, and yeah dude, we
know about "honey pots" and that KGB and _______________________ (fill in Intel agency
of your choice____) did them too... for... oh... lets see... a few centuries anyway. So what
are you trying to sell? You constantly keep using past circumstance as "proof" when it is no
such thing. You would get thrown out of a court for that... and ANYONE capable of critical
thinking knows, all you are selling is "LOGICAL FALLACIES". Hey... I don't dispute that you
will surely sell copies of your book to low information Kool Aid drinkers (You going to cite
THAT as proof that your book is "true" now as well?)
Is there any empirical evidence of Trump/Putin collusion in this fairy tale? Lol Why does
Luke insist we read this without providing real, objective evidence? He expects us to just
take his and his "sources'" word for it?
Re-watching this interview, I'm absolutely astounded by the vacuity and ridiculous
attempts on the part of Harding to misdirect the conversation at the same time that he tries
to prop up his own credibility. This is literally a primer in the 'art' of
Imperialist/careerist 'journalism.'
Why H.R.C. 'lost'? "And it's deadly. Doubtless, Crosscheck delivered Michigan to Trump who
supposedly "won" the state by 10,700 votes. The Secretary of State's office proudly told me
that they were "very aggressive" in removing listed voters before the 2016 election. Kobach,
who created the lists for his fellow GOP officials, tagged a whopping 417,147 in Michigan as
potential double voters."
http://www.gregpalast.com/trump-picks-al-capone-vote-rigging-investigate-federal-voter-fraud/
"it's opportunistic it's very often 04:45 pretty low-budget the kind
of hacking 04:47 operation to hack the
Democratic Party 04:49 was done by two separate
groups of kind 04:52 of Kremlin hackers
probably not owning 04:54 kind of huge sums of money
and and so 04:58 some of it is kind of
improvisational 05:00 the most important thing
is that you you 05:02 have people with access
which in this . . . " Wikileaks hacked the Democratic Party?
Oregon's Democrats vote for and support attacks on our civil liberties, love the emergence
of censorship in social media and the press, vote for the criminalization of protest, vote
for the militarization of police and the unconstitutional massive expansion of the
surveillance state. Democrats Hate All Life on Mother Earth. Love torture. Love Killing
millions of brown folk overseas. Democrats are steamy piles of Horse Manure. Republicans
& Democrats are criminal organizations and are EVIL and war for profit groups; they do
the bidding of foreign dictators before they listen to the American People.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/warisaracket.html
Hi NRDC; I have made many monetary contributions to your organization. You are evoking the
fear of Trump in this year end fund drive. Fighting against Trump is a democratic stance.
Democrats cheated Bernie Sanders and gave us Trump; both parties are corrupt and enemies of
all life on earth. Your organization is used for politics chiefly. I will find organizations
to donate to that are for the people, not war and corruption and not run by selected leaders
picked for their political powers and hate of common man and that actually love Mother earth.
Politics is 100% lies and that makes you guys liars and cheats just like the democrats.
Oregon Green Energy
Harding, show us the evidence. If you had any real, objective evidence, you would all want
to share it. You have shared NOTHING. None of you Russia-gaters share anything other than
circumstantial. Nobody who is "skeptical," or who uses logic and critical thinking skills has
ever said Russia and Putin weren't shady and oppressive, but that is not the
argument.
Why on Earth isn't Mueller investigating radical democrats for embezzling taxpayer money
for the Climate Change hoax? Maybe Mueller needs to be investigated for fraud and collusion
with North Korea and Iran.
Nice job of keeping this insane relentlessly endless narrative of Russian's changing the
election in any meaningful way. This is McCarthyism the modern day Maddowism. It's all
mainstream wants to talk about. Meanwhile in real life: 1) The majority of the population
doesn't have $500 in the bank to cover emergencies. 2) The War Machine continues to ramp up
to epic levels 3) The USA continues to employ their regime change diplomacy 4) The Life
Expediency in the USA is going down. Opiod's largely to blame 5) The USA is not even in the
top ten among providing Quality Healthcare 6) The USA is Number ONE in passing on the HIGHEST
COST Healthcare I could go, on it's exhausting....
This man is delusional there is no evidence of any collusion why is RealNews interviewing
this hack...watch Aaron Mate show this hack up. The Guardian is a right wing rag now don't
follow it end any association with them. Aaron Mate well done.
The DNC/Hillary corruption was revealed in the emails and they have successfully
distracted the public with a the dangerous fabrication of Russia collusion when the
conversation should be about the corruption of the democratic process. There are too many
complicit media and politicians so willing to go along with it but thankfully most Americans
are awake to the scheme.
In order to read the book I would have to buy the book, get it? An author should be able
to articulate their main arguments in an interview. The emoticons colluding was disturbing
though.
If you ask for actual facts of collusion you are a 'collusion rejectionist'. Hillarious.
Harding is a 'collusion conspiracy theorist'. Harding throws in the murder of Litvinenko as
if this, in any way, relates to the US election. It doesn't. Yes, Russian, US and Israeli
Intelligence kill people regularly for political reasons. Do I need to give Luke Harding a
history lesson? The smiley face emoticon issue, which Harding tried to swerve away from,
shows the level of journalistic quality Harding delivers. Harding deals in smear, supposition
and innuendo to sell books. The misleading cover and title show his journalistic credibility.
He actually raised as evidence of collusion, that Trump wasn't rude to Putin in interviews.
Is he serious? What a hack writer. As a side note, the CIA wrote the book in interfering in
other country's elections and governments. This indignation is a joke. If this is true they
finally got some of their own back. See how it feels?
For the record, this is what these people sound like on Tucker Carlson, too. Tucker had
Adam Schiff on and subjected him to real questions rather than the head-nodding interviews
Schiff is used to. Needless to say, Schiff hasn't been on Tucker Carlson's show since. Pretty
soon they'll start calling people skeptical of the evidence provided thus far "collusion
deniers".
Noted right-wing hack Jeremy Scahill has it exactly right. This guy Harding is just an
opportunist who knows what the audience wants. And he knows that 99% of the people who cite
the book will never read beyond the cover; in fact, he's counting on it. Expect the rest of
his little book tour to look like this: CNN, NPR, BBC, The Young Turks, The David Pakman Show
(tee hee), Huff Po etc etc
*You really should have read the book though. You could have seen that coming a mile away.
Why give him the out? Read the book before you attempt to trap someone with it. You should
still marry me though.
Harding threw all the red herrings he could find! Just because the man has a British
accent doesnt make him above scrutiny. Remember Louise Mensch? This was the sum (or scam) of
all fears: the Cold War , "repressive regime, "opposition crackdown" ,Soviet KGB, throw in
bits of Russian words.This was funny & painful at the same time. I nearly fell off my
chair when Aaron said "emoticons", that part was kinda
surreal.Talk to my friends! Go to Russia! I lived in Russia! I talked to the opposition!
I speak Russian! I thought he was gonna add: my best friends are Russian! My wife is
Russian!Niding is right Luke wasnt prepapred at all.Was it me or was Luke perspiring because
he was struggling? Why was he throwing air quotes? Thanks Aaron!
Brutal interview and painful to watch. I never believed in the Trump/Russia collusion fake
narrative. It doesn't exist. It was made up (FBI insurance policy) against Trump.
Great job Aaron to hold this author's feet to the fire and discredit his conclusions of
Trump/Russian collusion. I hate Trump and would love to see him kicked out of office, but
this Russia-gate conspiracy theory so far has no legs and this author is a posture kid for
this nonsense.
The author repeatedly returns to his talking points when challenged for evidence to
support his assertions. This is how ALL INTERVIEWS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED. And the claim that
the interviewer had to read the whole book to rightly ask for evidence to support assertions
is utterly ridiculous.
This is a very biased interview. Mueller will tell the last word on Russia meddling Trump
campaign. But you can not question the content of a book you had not read in advance as this
young man does. I have followed the issue from the beginning in CNN and other media and I
have read the book Collusion, which is worth reading, very informative about. So this debate
lead me think this "journalist" may be paid by FSB/Putin.
I would say if you are going to critique the Christian idea of God it's essential you read
the bible if you are going to do it in any meaningful way . I take it you also have not read
the book . This is like debate climate denailists, it's the same tatic , they take some data
and misrepresent it to prove an ideological point . What I don't understand is why . And that
goes to my first point , why even bother debate it at all ? You say he offered no proof , but
he was just defending matte attachs , which if you look into it, are not that credible either
. If he thought he was going to debunk all the claims made in the book, he should of read it,
as he just looks stupid . But if you have not read it either, it's easy to agree with him, as
it's not a genuine debate .
Another Libtard bites the dust, grand claims of collusion without the necessary proof.
Going all the way back the 80' and 90' to justify hearsay. This libtard should be put in jail
for defamation and slander for not have enough proof for those claims.
Luke's book is already discounted, being peddled for barely half of its list price. The
man is a fraud with an anti-Putin vendetta he's trying to settle.
His entire argument is a gish gallop fallacy......... They're throwing dozens of
accusations at Trump, all of them individually weak arguments. If thier were actual fire,
they wouldn't need all of the smoke & mirrors.
It seems (opinion = fact ) in the UK , just walk around and ask ordinary Russians what
they think . The tactical guilt trip as a defensive tool , when you can't answer question .
This is another propagandist colluding with we're not sure who? , believe me anyway , how
dare you not believe me .
Wow!!! That's the best news interview I saw in ages... calmly, respectfully but surely
exposing that joke of a journalist for what he is: a fraud. Tnx Aaron!!! Keep on
truckin'...
Russia seem to have gotten almost nothing out of this Presidency. If there was something
transactional going on then Russian intelligence if far more incompetent than people are
being led to believe.
His answer to the very first Question explains everything, is the collusion ? we have to
go way back to 1987. (I thought this was during the campaign) (IGNORE THE NOISE IN THE MEDIA)
if you look at it, clinton payed many millions from KGB officers to get info on trump during
the campaign.
What a complete fraud this guy is. This is the book version of the "Steele Dossier", just
a bunch of crap telling people what they want to hear to make a quick buck. Bottom
feeders.
Why are we listening? Why did you interview an englishman of questionable character and
background about a case that is in investigation and has not found a single connection. This
book foremost is for profit and attention for the writer's benefit. Can he produce a single
documents to back his statements? My guess is no. Everything he says is hearsay and fiction.
The very first question asked is redirected... always when a question is redirected you can
bet it's all garbage. He's just another babbling backward British pompous bozo looking to
under mind and influence US citizens of our elected president. Brits by nature are globalist.
The small island has for century plagued the world with globalist ideals of using people all
over the world to enrich themselves. NEVER believe a Brit unless they are speaking ills of
their own country which basically has 2 classes, rich and poor.
Great work Aaron. Its great to see an interview that challenges the guest to rationally
explain the basis of proof for this nonsense red herring issue. Harding could not do it
without clear suppositions and assumptions - no proof. The Guardian - my how its prestige has
fallen.....and that guy wrote the book on the collusion and could not justify his case. That
is why his feed cut out - frustration he does not encounter thru corporate media
softball.
It is far too early to write off the investigation into Russian activities in the 2016
election or dismiss how long Russian operatives will cultivate a subject (POTUS Trump). They
often do not know how or where the people they cultivate will eventually end up, but they do
know that they have a hook in them, for future use. It's how they've done business for
decades.
Good job nailing him, however, " Putin is not a nice person" - what kind of BS is that?
Not a nice person, comparing to whom? The Russians seem to like him just fine and that's the
only thing that matters.
really i cringe listening to that guy - that's how that whole bullshit story implodes when
not all parties follow some scripts. thanks aaron - well done. merry xmas @ all.
Luke Harding talks a lot of Nonsense and which kind of secret meetings? What the Hell? He
just making Money with his Book and the truth doesn´t interst him
whatsover!
HARDING has no SHAME... the fact that he can blather this moronic nonsense without
laughing is mind blowing. Aaron just wants to laugh out loud so many times... Harding loves
to offer salacious antidotes regarding how evil Putin is, however there is ABSOLUTELY ZERO
EVIDENCE!
**IF THIS IS AN ACT OF WAR WE MUST HAVE EVIDENCE!** DID HARDING - "the reporter"
(used loosely) contact the DNC in order to find out whether they allowed the FBI to inspect
or examine the servers. This is PURE PROPAGANDA... Trump's phone calls have been monitored
according to retired NSA whistle blowers since 2005. If there was any conversation it would
have been leaked there is absolutely NO evidence what so ever of collusion. The FBI has no
evidence and STEELE has testified in court that other than Carter Page's trip to Moscow the
Dossier is ENTIRELY UNVERIFIED. When the entire thing is shown to have been a hoax will this
idiot retract his drivel. PREET BAHARA -Hillary donor - is the US atty who allowed the
Russian Lawyer into the country.
"... Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and ''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!! ..."
"... I don't think that guy knows what the word "evidence" means. ..."
"... You know what's hilarious? This guy didn't even do the basic research required to know the kind of interview he was getting into. ..."
"... Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. ..."
"... This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he has. ..."
"... I bet this clown sees Russian agents under his bed at night. ..."
"... This guy is better off appearing on Rachel Maddow show. he would get 0 push back from her ..."
"... Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate ..."
"... How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any attention?? ..."
"... the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda ..."
"... Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this "storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with stories like his. ..."
This moronic Brit wrote an entire book? Beginning with a visit to trump tower by a soviet
era diplomat who made a factual statement about how lovely Trump Tower is? It is a beautiful
tower, and had I seen the Donald on the streets of NYC, I would have said the same thing.
After a year of no implication.of collusion, we are left with delusion collusion. If the
moron wants to make a great case, how about researching the names of tenants of projects to
which Trump sold the right to his name? Or the Odessan taxi drivers who sometimes drove past
Trump Tower? After 7 minutes, I wondered how the interviewer had any patience for the moron,
except to get his worthless and lazy slime argument into the record. Click. The interviewer
had patience.
Another guy who, when asked for evidence to back up his assertions, answers with a
non-specific hand-wave :'( Nice interview, Aaron - you asked him questions he didn't like,
but you did it politely.
Luke, on the other hand, comes across as rude and petty... not a
great way to present a viewpoint. BTW, I think it's great that TheRealNews interviews people
with various opinions, and isn't afraid to ask them "hard" questions.
Russian collusion/ interference = FAKE NEWS; Israeli collusion/ interference = BINGO. Every
Politician in the whole damn world knows this fact but nobody has the balls to say it, and
''Hello Jerusalem'' Wake up sheeple!!!
Thank you Aaron, you are now the most respected and honest journalist left in North
America! Your professionalism and demeanor exemplify class and honesty, which so
diametrically compared to Mr. Harding's lackings thereof, it illuminated how ridiculous and
speculative this whole collusion fiction has become. e.g. Green Party Jill Stein's guilt for
being at the same table that Putin sat at for mere minutes long enough to be included in a
photo, now smeared by the press as a Russian asset. I never saw Aaron raise his hands and ape
and gesticulate for added performance. Ultimately, when no evidence was ever presented (as
there is none to be found), this hilariously unfunny supposed-journalist, moreover fiction
author, invented the new term collusion-rejectionist, and promptly grabbed his mouse to click
disconnect and terminate his utter embarassment so expertly elucidated in this interview.
Thank You, Happy Holidays and best of luck in 2018 Aaron!
Bullcrap! Hillary Clinton and her Cronies, secured Trumps win, by how they cheated Bernie
during the 2016 Primary! Trump did not need Russia's, whatever you think they did, Hillary
secured the win for Trump because of her DIRTY POLITICS, against the Democratic Base! Hillary
and her thugs keep this up, they will secure the Republican Control in Washington, and quite
honestly, its what they want! Because I firmly believe that the Clinton's and all whom
support them ARE undercover Republicans, out to, and HAVE, destroyed the Democratic
Party!
This Luke is either a Shill trying to make a profit by selling to Trump haters or the
worst journalist in the world, He has lotsa of innuendo but no hard proof. No evidence of
tape that TRump agrees to Quid pro quo with Putin, No documents of a deal, nothing that could
convict a spie, just innuendo. "Putin is a bad guy and hates America" That is all he
has.
This man is quite hilarious in that even if Putin did hack the election all this
storyteller relates is predicated on the fact that, WE THE PEOPLE are entirely idiotic in in
the US. 'Tis quite condescending @TheRealNews
LUKE= So I think there is proof from my point of view but I don't have any. Only a feeling
and theories that can't be proven. No Evidence but Russia is bad. All oligarchs and
billionaires work with each other to make more money. Of course Putin and Trump had meetings.
So does Jeff Besos and the CIA.
Nowadays the facts and evidence are not part of the news .. it is enough giving a good
speech and choose the correct words and you can even convince the people that the earth is
flat ... the same is happening with the Russia gate, think tanks will continue with
this no sense until the people give up and start believing in the Russia gate
One question: What kind of nation is modern day Russia? TOTALLY separate question: Did
they conduct some insidious assault on American elections (as though corporations don't do
this already)? These are totally unrelated issues. The human rights situation in Russia may
be- and is- awful. But we can imagine an extremely murderous nation internally that doesn't
happen to be much of a threat externally
Sez Corporatist Hack: "...The Russian media were portraying Hillary as some sort of
warmonger madwoman." Hello: That's EXACTLY what she is. She said one of her first acts as
President would be to declare a no-fly zone in Syria, which Gen. Dunford, testifying before
Congress, said would require going to war with Russia.
But Clinton is a front for the neocon
wing of the MIC, and they have been lusting for a new "Cold" War on the obvious grounds that
it would increase the already appalling amount of US and world resources they suck up. The
war corporations are so driven for profit that a little thing like the possibility of WWIII
is of no concern to them. So they tell themselves the story that the Russians would back down
and go home; the US would then be able to overthrow Assad so the oil companies could get
their damned pipeline across southern Syria; and the Russians, angry at the loss of face,
would ramp up their defense spending, which of course would require the US to ramp up theirs
even more.
Neat plan for never-ending profits, brought to you by Hillary Clinton and the
Warmongers. The problem is that Russia does not fear the US, and knows that it has the raw
power to win a conflict in Syria if it wants to respond that strongly (look up "Zircon"
hyper-sonic missile, which they have thousands of and against which US aircraft carriers have
no defense). And Russia, being legally invited by the legally-elected President of Syria, and
knowing the US to be acting illegally, might just decide to respond if the US attacks its
planes.
And if they send a carrier to the bottom of the Gulf to stop American fighters from
interfering with their legal activities in Syria, then President Clinton would have been
faced with a choice: Go nuclear or go home. Which do you think she would have done? It's a
damn good thing Trump won, detestable as he is. We are not at war with Russia, and that at
least is ahead of where we very likely would have been if the Shill had slimed her way into
power.
Sez Corporatist Hack: "I'm a story teller." No doubt about it, because he's told a bunch
of stories on this video. The Guardian is worthless corporatist trash, and Luke Harding is a
lying propagandist. I wonder who else KOFF*CIA*AHEM is paying his salary?
How many times & ways & years of Luke Harding being proven a fraudulent
opportunist does it take for serious media platforms to simply stop paying him any
attention??
Aaron batting out the park these regular talking points so easily, It looked like Harding
has never had pushback on this. Twas interesting seeing him on the backfoot.
the guardian, crap reporting innuendo and vague and propaganda....what an ass. thanks aaron, for keeping his feet to the fire and not letting him get away with lying. very
satisfying to see these a holes not get away with it for once.
Everything this guy sites happens all the time with many countries involved. So the
question is, why isolate one country? This another case of creating a narrative, and then
looking for non existent facts to back up said narrative. Sounds zealous. I cannot finish
watching this. Good job Aaron.
Tough interview, while he has a point the book should have been read thoroughly, it was a
shame he used that as a point to avoid answering the hard question, "where is the proof?". It
was interesting to hear about "Trump's ties to Russia", I think it was a shame the author
felt it was acceptable to defer to his mistrust (warranted) and bad feelings towards
Putin/Russian power structure in order to seemingly (from my point of view) justify the
position.
This interview goes to show how difficult REAL journalism is, and how REAL
scholarship is very valuable. While the author has a lot of interesting points, on this
issue, I only see this probe/issue as a political wedge used to disenfranchise the presiding
elected president, and the best thing about this whole process is a clear illustration about
how bankrupt and politically corrupt DC is.
The confidence game DC is pushing needs to be
brought down a few levels, and some power needs to go back to the people. We all have our own
part to play, and being a victim, I feel is a waste of time, except as a means of holding
people accountable.
smoke and mirrors. The evidence is so over-whelming that if anything was going
to be prosecuted the trial would already be completed.
This is getting a lot more complicated than it needs to be. The buzzphrase that most
Americans respond to (like Pavlov's dogs) is "Russia meddled in our election!" U.S. elections
have always been "meddled" with. It's enough to say Trump, Kushner & their ilk made a lot
of lucrative financial deals with Russia that turn out to be 1) conflicts of interest for ANY
elected official and 2) abuse of (presidential) power. Isn't that enough?
I know that this person is trying to sell a book, but I see the investigation wrapping up.
It would be pretty hard to carry on for another year. After all, Mueller has said it has
completed all the WH interviews - and the ones at the top of an investigation are always the
last ones questioned. Furthermore, in the first three week of November alone, 4,289 sealed
cases have appeared in federal dockets throughout the nation - including the territories.
There are probably more now. No one knows how many are Muellers, but the 4 unsealed cases are
part of the initial group of filings. My prediction - nothing on Trump and Hillary goes to
prison finally.
Well done Aaron! This was a rare opportunity to dismantle a genuine, probably unwilling
cog of corporate subversion and hysteria fueled by money chasing. Morons like this
"storyteller" help harmful misunderstandings deepen. Wars and untold misery are started with
stories like his.
Seriously, RNN? Why do you give this puppets book play. Good for you Erin for questioning
him. He's on the wrong side of this. There are so many connections among Obama FBI, DOJ,
State Dept, Clinton and DNC to Fusion GPS that you're have to be a complete moron not to want
to investigate THAT collusion to swing and election. They ere spying on trump and associates
all last year. If there was collusion the leaky DC swamp would have spilled the beans.With
regard to this collusion with Russia, Trump seems pretty clean. The NSA should know exactly
who hacked the DNC servers the collect every oversees packet transfer. Given they have not
come forward with that evidence I am more inclined to believe it was a leak, especially given
Former NSA cryptographer and IC pro Bill Binney pretty much proved it was a leak when he
showed the transfer rates were only achievable at a local port. Not over the Internet.
Impossible! Trump is an international businessman, some as Clinton's who have just as much
shady history with Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs. Follow the money there is a flow of money
from Russian banks and players to the Clinton Foundation while she was SoS.
So sad you cannot read the book and you cannot listen and dismiss a really serious threat
to our elections. You did not even know what happened in Estonia. You demonstrate a real lack
of willingness to explore the truth with an open mind.
That was great! The emoticon proof! Hahaha! His tenacity was quasi-religious, especially
in the wrap-up and boils down to "There is evidence of collusion, even though I cannot point
to any evidence."
1987 all the way back when it was called the Soviet Union and was communist country. I am
an Independent, but get a charge out of all the lying and BS going on in the USA and the 2
parties and their zombie followers. Empires going down and the 2 parties are just puppets for
the Military Industrial Congressional Complex/Deep State. Big war coming and need lots of
unemployeed young draftees.
Good job, Aaron! What does the poisoning of Alexander Litvinenko have to do with Donald
Trump colluding with Russia to steal the election from the hideous witch?
Back in August of 2016, which feels like
millions of years ago in terms of everything that's happened in American politics since that time, Glenn
Greenwald published an article in The Intercept titled "
Democrats'
Tactic of Accusing Critics of Kremlin Allegiance Has Long, Ugly History in U.S.
". I took note of the
article because I look up to Greenwald, but because of my focus on the US presidential election I couldn't
really see the looming terror on the horizon that he was warning of at the time.
After the election I started getting comments on my
anti-Democratic establishment articles accusing them of being "Kremlin propaganda", and I had no idea how to
respond to this. I'm an Australian mother who started doing political commentary last year because I fell in
love with Bernie Sanders; I've never been to Russia, I've never been involved with Russia, and at that point my
interest in Russia amounted to an affection for Regina Spektor, those cool fur hats and the movie
Spies Like Us
. I'd certainly never in my life been accused of writing
propaganda.
Now these comments have become a daily
occurrence. I make unapologetically frequent use of social media blocking features, but I still get accused of
being a Kremlin propagandist multiple times a day for my skepticism of the Russiagate conspiracy theory and my
criticism of the Democratic party.
And now pro-establishment outlets are starting to
publish attack editorials full of outright lies about me. Rantt News ran a
hit piece
on me last month which
reported
completely falsely that I'm a Russian shill hired "to spread alternative facts and false
equivalencies in order to divide leftists and ensure Trump, Ryan, their cabal of billionaires, and their
newfound Russian friends all continue to enjoy power at the expense of your civil rights." To substantiate his
claim the author cited two articles of mine that I'd written for the Melbourne site Newslogue which were then
republished
without my permission by a website called Russia Insider, with whom I have never had contact
apart from my recent request that they remove the articles.
As I pointed out in
my response to the Rantt smear piece
, Russia Insider very clearly labels those articles as copies that it
took from elsewhere. Here is a screenshot from the
first one
, which very plainly labels the article as having come from Newslogue:
"... I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become. ..."
"... Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing. ..."
"... I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist, a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington. I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here. ..."
I sense The Duran and Zero Hedge are suspect for readers of this site, but however they may be seen as biased for Trump, they
continually broadcast the sham the Mueller investigation has become.
Today Alexander Mercouris, to me one of the best reporters on this matter additional to b, indicates the Mueller investigation
will delay and stall with this and that until the 2018 congressional elections, with the Dems presuming these elections will be
won by Democrats, which will take the heat off Mueller's show by current Repubs led by Nunes--now shifting to investigate Clinton.
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump
re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner
with Putin present. Anything Russia is gobbled down by automatic demonizing as "them Russian bastards did it Oh for sure." Trump
tweets and complains but apparently does nothing to create a new prosecutor going after Clinton, where the investigation should
focus, possibly because Mueller is continually miscalculating and the near collapse of what the committee is doing.
I don't comment on all this as a fan of Trump. Far be it. I'm very critical of Trump as essentially incompetent, an egotist,
a foolhardy war-monger, and indeed I'll go with Tillerson's "fucking moron" assessment. But to concentrate simply on Trump, as
moderate previous "liberals" are doing, is to ignore the other half of the problem in the corruption that is the current Washington.
I want to see the farce of the Mueller investigation get more attention, and thank you b, for bringing it up here.
"... With the insertion of Alexei Navalny, a well-known USA/Wall St. stooge who learned his chops at Yale University as a fellow of the Greenberg World Fellows Program, into the Russian political landscape the US State Department certainly is interfering with Russian politics. Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government ..."
"... The "Democratic Alternative" (AKA DA!) front group that Nalvany "co-founded" was fully funded (and created) by the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (irony alert). ..."
"... That Navalny is supported by hard right reactionaries pretending to be populists should set off alarms but worse this is a clear case of US meddling in the electoral politics (another irony alert) of Russia. ..."
The irony and hypocrisy as well as the buffoonery of the US Beltway Junta is certainly in
full display with it's latest Russophobe allegation of election tampering. Put aside all the
obvious items such as, zero evidence, US elections are already rigged by the US elites before
a single vote is cast, the US has been tampering in just about every countries elections for
decades overtly and covertly- and just consider the more recent attempt BY THE US to tamper
in Russian elections through the ever-handy NED.
With the insertion of Alexei Navalny, a well-known USA/Wall St. stooge who learned his
chops at Yale University as a fellow of the Greenberg World Fellows Program, into the Russian
political landscape the US State Department certainly is interfering with Russian politics.
Navalny was involved directly in founding a movement funded by the US government
The "Democratic Alternative" (AKA DA!) front group that Nalvany "co-founded" was fully
funded (and created) by the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (irony
alert).
That Navalny is supported by hard right reactionaries pretending to be populists
should set off alarms but worse this is a clear case of US meddling in the electoral politics
(another irony alert) of Russia.
But yes, of course, let's Call it Democracy and have some pretend outrage in the US
Propaganda Sector where the US Chattering Classes are aghast that Russia won't allow the NED
to interfere in it's elections.
Neocons dominate the US foreign policy establishment.
In other words Russiagate might be a pre-emptive move by neocons after Trump elections.
Notable quotes:
"... The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so. ..."
"... "The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility – even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind." ..."
"... But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world, including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering controls in the future. ..."
"... USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come. ..."
I have great respect for the reporting on this site regarding Syria and the Middle East. I
regret that for some reason there is this dogmatic approach to the issue of Russian attempts
to influence the US election. Why wouldn't the Russians try to sway the election? Allowing
Hillary to win would have put a dangerous adversary in the White House, one with even more
aggressive neocon tendencies than Obama. Trump has been owned by Russian mobsters since the
the 1990s, and his ties to Russian criminals like Felix Sater are well known.
Putin thought that getting Trump in office would allow the US to go down a more restrained
foreign policy path and lift sanctions against Russia, completely understandable goals. Using
Facebook/Twitter bots and groups like Cambridge Analytica, an effort was made to sway public
opinion toward Trump. That is just politics. And does anyone really doubt there are
incriminating sexual videos of Trump out there? Trump (like Bill Clinton) was buddies with
billionaire pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. Of course there are videos of Trump that can be used
for blackmail purposes, and of course they would be used to get him on board with the Russian
plan.
The problem is that everything Trump touches dies. He's a fraud and an incompetent idiot.
Always has been. To make matters worse, Trump is controlled by the Zionists through his
Orthodox Jewish daughter and Israeli spy son-in-law. This gave power to the most openly
extreme Zionist elements who will keep pushing for more war in the Middle East. And Trump is
so vile that he's hated by the majority of Americans and doesn't have the political power to
end sanctions against Russia.
Personally, I think this is all for the best. Despite his Zionist handlers, Trump will
unintentionally unwind the American Empire through incompetence and lack of strategy, which
allows Syria and the rest of the world to breathe and rebuild. So Russia may have made a bad
bet on this guy being a useful ally, but his own stupidity will end up working out to the
world's favor in the long run.
there is considerable irony in use of "dogmatic" here: the dogma actually occurs in the
rigid authoritarian propaganda that the Russians Putin specifically interfered with the
election itself, which now smugly blankets any discussion. "The Russians interfered" is now
dogma, when that statement is not factually shown, and should read, "allegedly interfered."
The dogma does not come from questioning this conclusion. Because Putin, during the
campaign, complimented Trump, does not support the conclusion with its insinuation that those
who voted for Trump needed to be influenced by anything other than being fed up with the
usual in American politics. Same with Brexit. That dissatisfaction continues, and it doesn't
need Russian influence to feed it. This is infantile oversimplification to say so.
To suggest "possibly" in any argument does not provide evidence. There is no evidence.
Take a look at b's link to the following for a clear, sane assessment of what's going on. As
with:
"The centrepiece of the faith, based on the hacking charge, is the belief that Vladimir
Putin orchestrated an attack on American democracy by ordering his minions to interfere in
the election on behalf of Trump. The story became gospel with breathtaking suddenness and
completeness. Doubters are perceived as heretics and as apologists for Trump and Putin, the
evil twins and co-conspirators behind this attack on American democracy. Responsibility for
the absence of debate lies in large part with the major media outlets. Their uncritical
embrace and endless repetition of the Russian hack story have made it seem a fait accompli in
the public mind. It is hard to estimate popular belief in this new orthodoxy, but it does not
seem to be merely a creed of Washington insiders. If you question the received narrative in
casual conversations, you run the risk of provoking blank stares or overt hostility –
even from old friends. This has all been baffling and troubling to me; there have been
moments when pop-culture fantasies (body snatchers, Kool-Aid) have come to mind."
I echo you opinion that this site gives great reports on issues pertaining to Syria and
the ME. Credit to b.
On your surmise that Putin prefers Trump to Hillary and would thus have incentive to
influence the election, I beg to differ. Putin is one smart statesman; he knows very well it
makes no difference which candidates gets elected in US elections. Any candidate that WOULD
make a difference would NEVER see the daylight of nomination, especially at the presidential
level. I myself believe all the talk of Russia interfering the 2016 Election is no more than
a witch hunt.
But I do believe Putin, and for that matter Xi Jinping of China too, should make efforts
to infiltrate the USA election processes. It's an eye for an eye. USA has been exercising its
free hands in manipulating elections and stirring up color revolutions all around the world,
including the 2012 presidential election in Russia. They should be given a taste of their own
medicine. In fact, I believe it is for this reason that the US MSM is playing up this hocus
pocus Russian-gate matter, as a preemptive measure to justify imposing electioneering
controls in the future.
USA may not be vulnerable as yet to this kind of external nuisances, as the masses have
not yet reached the stage of being easily stirred. But that time will come.
The key reason of Trump victory was the crisis of neoliberalism in the USA -- voters rejected candidates from two major and
discredited parties and elected outsider -- Trump is vain hopes that he can change the situation for the better (similar hope were
during lection of Obama who also positioned himself as an outsider). So far it looks like he betrayed his voters becoming
"Republican Obama" with fame "Make America Great Again" slogan (great for whom, for military industrial complex ?) instead of
Obama fake slogan "change we can believe in".
Notable quotes:
"... The Mueller case re election peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false. ..."
"... Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present ..."
"... Trump has claimed he has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are going to be disappointed. ..."
"... Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about: ..."
Why there is not more attention to the outright sham of the investigation is not clear to me. The Mueller case re election
peddling rests entirely on the Steele dossier, now shown to be false.
Instead, Mueller is going after unrelated matters in Trump re Russian business deals, or matters taking place AFTER
the election, or stupidly investigating Jill Stein for attending a dinner with Putin present.
Is the investigation a sham? Most of what you read about it is supposition coming from partisan reporters working for partisan
newspapers. The actual facts are few and far between.
Manafort was clearly influence-peddling but for Turkey and a Ukrainian oligarch. Flynn clear did lie but his actions, requesting
Russia delay a response to the expulsion of diplomat and that Russia block a resolution against Israel, appear not to be of themselves
illegal. Trump Jr holding a meeting with a Maltese professor of international relations, a Russian criminal lawyer and a "niece"
of Putin who wasn't in fact a niece of Putin was neither here nor there unless Trump Jr. lied to the FBI.
There is no evidence that the Steele dossier corroborates any of the above acts, but if the Obama regime really used it to
get a FISA warrant then that needs to be investigated. Even the author of the dossier admits it might be 30% wrong.
As for Jill Stein, it's news to me that Mueller is investigating her when it seems to be some Democrats in the Senate who are
doing so.
There have been a lot of "leaks" about the Mueller investigation but most reports suggest none of the leaks come from the investigation
itself which seems to be watertight. It's a matter of waiting and seeing what comes out later and that Trump has claimed he
has no intention of sacking Mueller suggests that those who expect major revelations of a conspiracy between Putin and Trump are
going to be disappointed. And nobody can then say that they weren't warned.
What was the lie? You have the "lie" and no one else has it. There is no lie. There wasn't even a lie to Pence. Flynn was NSC
advisor, prior campaign and transition advisor on Nation Security. He was protecting the President's "moves" and doing the President's
business.
Flynn's lie is like Russia hacked the election. Totally ether. Never happened. No proof, no indication, all fabricated
out of whole cloth. BS. The FBI constructs a crime and plants it on people. A misstatement or in Flynn's case, his duty is to
deny, is not a lie. Accepting a meme is what propaganda is all about:
Russia hacked Hillary's server.
Putin poisoned the dissident.
Putin shot the reporter.
Kremlin killed Nemstov on the bridge,
Assad used chemical weapons,
Russia invaded Crimea,
It's all memes for people to accept as facts. Mike Flynn's job is to lie to everyone but his commander-in-chief. That's what
he did. In other words, he told "the truth" which everyone should know could be a lie. Flynn was working for President-elect Trump
as his top Intel man. Of course, he would lie. He spent 33 years in military Intel, rose to the top and told a million lies. Spies
lie. Espionage is about truth and untruth.
"... "The prospect of maintaining global and regional stability has been considerably reduced as a result of deployment of elements of U.S. missile defense in Europe, the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East, as well as of practical implementation of the "global strike" concept and the deployment of strategic non-nuclear high-precision weapons, and also in the event of deployment of weapons in space." ..."
"... Now the United States shares the same concerns as Russia. This might be good news or bad news, depending on political decisions. ..."
"... The potential bad news is an arms race. If the two countries are unable to launch a dialogue, then the United States might seek to respond in kind. A hint at that option is contained in the NSS's requirement for creating an "overmatch" -- a force that is "capable of operating at sufficient scale and for ample duration to win across a range of scenarios." More troubling is the requirement that the future force must be able to "convince adversaries that we can and will defeat them -- not just punish them." This sounds like a prescription for an arms race -- a pursuit of superiority that some in the United States consistently sought (and equally consistently failed to achieve) during the Cold War. ..."
"The prospect of maintaining global and regional stability has been considerably reduced
as a result of deployment of elements of U.S. missile defense in Europe, the Asia-Pacific
region and the Middle East, as well as of practical implementation of the "global strike"
concept and the deployment of strategic non-nuclear high-precision weapons, and also in the
event of deployment of weapons in space."
Indeed, the United States' strategic conventional capability has been a nightmare for
Russian military planners since at least 1999, when it was employed in the Balkans. The initial
Russian response was to increase reliance on nuclear weapons, which were assigned a mission of
limited nuclear strike in response to a large-scale conventional attack. Moscow stated,
however, that this was a temporary fix and that reliance on nuclear weapons would again
decrease when it acquired a conventional strategic capability. Last month, Valery Gerasimov,
the chief of the general staff of the Russian Armed Forces, confirmed that Moscow planned to
reassign some deterrence missions from nuclear to conventional assets at an undefined future
time.
Now the United States shares the same concerns as Russia. This might be good news or bad
news, depending on political decisions.
The potential good news is that being on the same page makes arms-control dialogue easier.
For many years, the United States refused to discuss strategic conventional weapons at
arms-control talks while Russia relied on the comfort of preserving a monopoly on these assets.
That this position is outdated and counterproductive for U.S. interests became clear at least
in 2013, if not earlier -- at least for the handful of analysts who took Russian intentions
seriously. Washington seems to be catching up with reality, which helps establish a common
agenda as well as opening prospects for an effort to regulate such weapons. Perhaps we can then
stabilize the strategic landscape sufficiently to prevent not only nuclear war, but also a
large-scale conventional conflict that might escalate to nuclear clashes.
The potential bad news is an arms race. If the two countries are unable to launch a
dialogue, then the United States might seek to respond in kind. A hint at that option is
contained in the NSS's requirement for creating an "overmatch" -- a force that is "capable of
operating at sufficient scale and for ample duration to win across a range of scenarios." More
troubling is the requirement that the future force must be able to "convince adversaries that
we can and will defeat them -- not just punish them." This sounds like a prescription for an
arms race -- a pursuit of superiority that some in the United States consistently sought (and
equally consistently failed to achieve) during the Cold War.
Dr. Nikolai Sokov is a senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation
Studies.
Nick • 7 hours ago
America can ill afford another "Arms race", to put it simply we're in debt up to our
eyeballs. However there's many in DC who yearn for a new "cold war" but more specifically the
"arms race" that would come with it, just the same.
"... There is an ongoing conflict between Russia and the West concerning EU and NATO expansion into the former USSR. Russia's resisting this expansion, and the West is trying to bully Russia into accepting it. ..."
"... The Atlantic Alliance's support for the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine was all about pulling that country into the EU and NATO. The West's involvement in this revolt amounted to an aggressive move by the West against Russia. In return, Russia annexed Crimea, and triggered an anti-Ukrainian revolt in Donbass. ..."
"... The West's response to this was to impose economic sanctions on Russia, in an effort to destroy that country's economy. The goal was to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate, and to permanently forgo its vital national interests in Ukraine ..."
"... Sanctions are there because Russia. is an ally of Syria , and Israel wants Syria destroyed. The sanctions are a means to punish Russia for being Syria's friend, and also to remove Russian influence from that area of the world. Their base at Tarterus. ..."
"... For all it is worth , currently the Russians have more of a legitimate justification to attack the USA and Israel , than Japan did when they attacked Pearl Harbor, because of sanctions slapped on them since they would not leave China, and then moved into Vietnam after being allowed to by Vichy France. ..."
"... Quite obvious sanctions are not hurting Russia as they were Japan otherwise it would be a nasty scene right now. But still not advisable to poke that bear further. ..."
There is an ongoing conflict between Russia and the West concerning EU and NATO expansion into the former USSR. Russia's resisting
this expansion, and the West is trying to bully Russia into accepting it.
The Atlantic Alliance's support for the 2014 Maidan revolution in Ukraine was all about pulling that country into the EU and
NATO. The West's involvement in this revolt amounted to an aggressive move by the West against Russia. In return, Russia annexed
Crimea, and triggered an anti-Ukrainian revolt in Donbass.
The West's response to this was to impose economic sanctions on Russia, in an effort to destroy that country's economy. The
goal was to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate, and to permanently forgo its vital national interests in Ukraine.
The first round of sanctions has obviously failed to have its effect. That's why the US Senate is now attempting a new, harsher
round of sanctions in an effort to force Russia to submit to the West's mandate. ... more See More LikeShare
The new sanctions on Russia is all about giving an advantage to US LNG producers. First shipment of LNG to Poland from US,
ever, was done just last week. It is all a game for the benefit of the big business while emotionally victimizing the common
person in the US.
Timoty Frai made a lot of research and did a lot of conclusions. Unfortunately he did not understand the only fact: we Russians
has a little bit different mentality. Sanctions could not make us gave up if we believe that we are on a right side )))
For example: Imagine if someone say to you: "If you will not let me hurt
your baby I will reject you as a customer!" Will you let him hurt your baby??? Most of the Russians won't!
Sanctions are there because Russia. is an ally of Syria , and Israel wants Syria destroyed. The sanctions are a means to punish
Russia for being Syria's friend, and also to remove Russian influence from that area of the world. Their base at Tarterus.
For all it is worth , currently the Russians have more of a legitimate justification to attack the USA and Israel , than Japan
did when they attacked Pearl Harbor, because of sanctions slapped on them since they would not leave China, and then moved into
Vietnam after being allowed to by Vichy France.
Quite obvious sanctions are not hurting Russia as they were Japan otherwise it would be a nasty scene right now. But
still not advisable to poke that bear further.
Manuel Angst 6/15/2017 9:49 AM EDT
"... punish Russia for being Syria's friend"
Propping up the biggest butcher of Syrian people is hardly "being Syria's friend".
Must I remind you that many thousands of Americans living in both Southern and Northern states of American considered Abraham
Lincoln a butcher of American people and a tyrant doing the U.S. civil war. In fact he outraged so many who thought of him that
way he was assassinated because of a belief that he was a tyrant and a butcher of American people. Many people at the time remembered
Gen. Sherman's military march through the South that burned everything in sight and believe it or not killed many civilians. Be
careful who you call a butcher. ... more See More Like
Putin's disciple Trump may well decide to invade some small country as a way of shoring up his own declining approval. ... more
See More LikeShare
Tebteb27 6/15/2017 8:54 AM EDT
You are a type locality example of the slow digression into destructive ignorance that we currently face as a nation. God help
us. ... more See More Like
Ed Chen 6/15/2017 9:10 AM EDT
That is the best vision of how the leftist (the same word "liberal") propaganda screw the minds of the people like Don Brook,
to bring this nation to a dangerous situation of clash with each other over nothing, but the pain could be great. Are sanctions
pushing Russians to 'rally around the flag'? Not exactly. - The Washington Post
The sanctions have strengthen Russia's domestic economy and has turn the corner
despite low energy prices. Sanctions are never an effective tool for international relations, look at Cuba. lol
Russian are an educated people, they are not stupid which the Establishment media wants us to believe. Time to talk, isn't that
what diplomacy is all about? ... more See More LikeShare Erugo 1
altR 6/15/2017 8:58 AM EDT
You are also correct, sanctions are the biggest waste of time. They are only for the political elite to fake resolve
Trump is now 100% pure neocon. What a metamorphose is less a year from inauguration...
Notable quotes:
"... It says, with extreme hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests, attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people." ..."
"... A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of offensive capabilities." ..."
"... Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely. ..."
"... And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might well dispute. ..."
"... So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated, something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United States. ..."
If one takes Trump at his word, the U.S. will use force worldwide to make sure that only
Washington can dominate regionally, a frightening thought as it goes beyond even the wildest
pretensions of George W. Bush and Barack Obama. And equally ridiculous are the potential
consequences of such bullying – the White House clearly believes that it will make other
nations respect us and follow our leadership whereas quite the reverse is likely to be
true.
On the very limited bright side, Trump did have good things to say about the benefits
derived from intelligence sharing with Russia and he also spoke about both Moscow and Beijing
as "rivals" and "adversaries" instead of enemies. That was very refreshing to hear but
unfortunately the printed document did not say the same thing.
The NSS report provided considerably more detail than did the speech but it also was full of
generalizations and all too often relied on Washington group think to frame its options. The
beginning is somewhat terrifying for one of my inclinations on foreign policy:
"An America that is safe, prosperous, and free at home is an America with the strength,
confidence, and will to lead abroad. It is an America that can preserve peace, uphold liberty,
and create enduring advantages for the American people. Putting America first is the duty of
our government and the foundation for U.S. leadership in the world. A strong America is in the
vital interests of not only the American people, but also those around the world who want to
partner with the United States in pursuit of shared interests, values, and aspirations."
One has to ask what this "lead" and "leadership" and "partner" nonsense actually represents,
particularly in light of the fact that damn near the entire world just repudiated Trump's
decision to move the American Embassy in Israel as well as the nearly global rejection of his
response to climate change? And Washington's alleged need to lead has brought nothing but grief
to the American people starting in Korea and continuing with Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq and
numerous lesser stops along the way in places like Somalia, Panama and Syria. The false
narrative of the threat coming from "foreigners" has actually done nothing to make Americans
safer while also diminishing constitutional liberties and doing serious damage to the
economy.
The printed report is much more brutal than was Trump about the dangers facing America and
it is also much more carefree in the "facts" that it chooses to present. It says, with extreme
hyperbole, that "China and Russia challenge American power, influence, and interests,
attempting to erode American security and prosperity. They are determined to make economies
less free and less fair, to grow their militaries, and to control information and data to
repress their societies and expand their influence. At the same time, the dictatorships of the
Democratic People's Republic of Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran are determined to
destabilize regions, threaten Americans and our allies, and brutalize their own people."
A somewhat more detailed account of what Moscow is up to is also contained in the written
report, stating that "Russia is using subversive measures to weaken the credibility of
America's commitment to Europe, undermine transatlantic unity, and weaken European institutions
and governments. With its invasions of Georgia and Ukraine, Russia demonstrated its willingness
to violate the sovereignty of states in the region. Russia continues to intimidate its
neighbors with threatening behavior, such as nuclear posturing and the forward deployment of
offensive capabilities."
Nearly every detail in the indictment of Russia can be challenged. Most notably, if anyone
is forward deploying offensive capabilities in Eastern Europe or invading other countries it is
the United States, a trend that continues under Donald Trump. Just this past week, Trump
approved the sale of offensive weapons to Ukraine, which has already drawn a warning from
Moscow and will make any dialogue with Russia unlikely.
And, of course, there is the usual softball for Israel claiming that "For generations the
conflict between Israel and the Palestinians has been understood as the prime irritant
preventing peace and prosperity in the region. Today, the threats from jihadist terrorist
organizations and the threat from Iran are creating the realization that Israel is not the
cause of the region's problems." It is a conclusion that must make the unspeakable Benjamin
Netanyahu smile. One might observe that as Israel has attacked all of its neighbors since it
was founded, holding its governments blameless is a formulation that others in the region might
well dispute.
So the Donald Trump National Security Strategy will be more of the same, a combination of
the worst ideas to emerge from his two predecessors with little in the way of mitigation. Trump
might balk at going toe-to-toe with North Korea because they have the actual capability to
strike back and might think they have nothing to lose if they are about to be incinerated,
something no bully likes to see, but Iran is certainly in the cross hairs and you best believe
they have taken notice and will be preparing. Vladimir Putin too can sit back and wonder how
Trump could possibly have gotten everything so ass-backwards when he had so much latitude to
get at least some things right. The National Security Strategy will deliver little in the way
of security but it will provide an answer to why most of the world has come to hate the United
States.
"Hillary Clinton, following a long tradition of mainstream Democrats, had a grab bag of proposals that, if enacted, would collectively
make a huge difference in the lives of working people. "
I think you are wrong here.
Hillary was/is a neoliberal, and as such is hostile to the interests of working people and middle class in general. Like most
neoliberals she is a Machiavellian elitist. Her election promises are pure demagogy, much like Trump or Obama election promised
(immortalized in the slogan "change we can believe in" which now became the synonym of election fraud)
Also she was/is hell-bent of preserving/expanding the US neoliberal empire and the wars for neoliberal dominance (in ME mainly
for the benefit of Israel and Saudis). War are pretty costly ventures and they are financed at the expense of working class and
lower middle class, never at the expense of "fat cats" from Wall Street.
All-in-all I think the role of POTUS is greatly "misunderestimated" in your line of thinking. As we can see differences between
Trump and Hillary in foreign policy are marginal. Why are you assuming that the differences in domestic economic policies would
be greater ?
In reality there are other powerful factors in play that diminish the importance of POTUS:
The US Presidential Elections are no longer an instrument for change. They are completely corrupted and are mostly of "bread
and circuses" type of events, where two gladiators preselected by financial elite fight for the coveted position, using all kind
of dirty tricks for US public entertainment.
While the appearance of democracy remains, in reality the current system represents that rule of "deep state". In the classic
form of "National security state". In the National Security State, the US people no longer have the any chances to change the
policies.
Political emasculation of US voters has led to frustration, depression and rage. It feeds radical right movement including
neo-fascists, which embrace more extreme remedies to the current problems because they correctly feel that the traditional parties
no longer represent the will of the people.
Insulated and partially degenerated US elite have grown more obtuse and is essentially a hostage for neocons. They chose
to ignore the seething anger that lies just below the surface of brainwashed Us electorate.
The "American Dream" is officially dead. People at a and below lower middle class level see little hope for themselves,
their children or the country. The chasm between top 1% (or let's say top 20%) and the rest continues to fuel populist anger.
While Trump proved to be "yet another turncoat" like Barak Obama (who just got his first silver coin in the form of the
$400K one hour speech) Trump's election signify a broad rejection of the country's neoliberal elite, including neoliberal MSM,
neocon foreign policy as well as neoliberal economic system (and first of all neoliberal globalization).
The country foreign policy remains hijacked by neocons (this time in the form of fiends of Paul Wolfowitz among the military
brass appointed by Trump to top positions in his administration) and that might spell major conflict or even WWIII.
8. We can now talk about the USA as "neocon occupied country" (NOC), because the neocons policies contradict the USA national
interests and put heavy burden of taxpayers, especially in lower income categories. Due to neglect in maintaining infrastructure,
in some areas the USA already looks like third word country. Still we finance Israel and several other countries to the tune of
$40 billion dollars in military aid alone (that that's in case of Israel just the tip of the iceberg; real figure is probably
double of that) https://fas.org/sgp/crs/mideast/RL33222.pdf
Since Bill Clinton POTUS is more or less a marionette of financial oligarchy (which Obama -- as a person without the past (or
with a very fuzzy past) - symbolizes all too well).
"... In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on the resolution and it passed 14-0. ..."
"... But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role. ..."
"... While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated, probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value. ..."
"... In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968. ..."
"... Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US. ..."
"... It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm. ..."
"... "Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing their best to provoke Russia into one. ..."
"... The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak). ..."
"... So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel. ..."
"... So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first. ..."
"... Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will simply ignore the Israeli connection. ..."
"... Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference. ..."
"... I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy. "Nothing to see here folks, move along." ..."
"... The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy. ..."
"... FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy (against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End of story. ..."
"... God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact. ..."
"... I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy. If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote, arguably, perpetual war. ..."
"... Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's influence. ..."
The Israel-gate Side of Russia-gate December 23, 2017
While unproven claims of Russian meddling in U.S. politics have whipped Official Washington
into a frenzy, much less attention has been paid to real evidence of Israeli interference in
U.S. politics, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
By Dennis J Bernstein
In investigating Russia's alleged meddling in U.S. politics, special prosecutor Robert
Mueller uncovered evidence that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pressured the Trump
transition team to undermine President Obama's plans to permit the United Nations to censure
Israel over its illegal settlement building on the Palestinian West Bank, a discovery
referenced in the plea deal with President Trump's first National Security Adviser Michael
Flynn.
President Donald J. Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel at the United
Nations General Assembly (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
At Netanyahu's behest, Flynn and President Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly took
the lead in the lobbying to derail the U.N. resolution, which Flynn discussed in a phone call
with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak (in which the Russian diplomat rebuffed Flynn's appeal
to block the resolution).
I spoke on Dec, 18 with independent journalist and blogger Richard Silverstein, who writes
on national security and other issues for a number of blogs at Tikun Olam .
Dennis Bernstein: A part of Michael Flynn's plea had to do with some actions he took before
coming to power regarding Israel and the United Nations. Please explain.
Richard Silverstein:
The Obama administration was negotiating in the [UN] Security Council
just before he left office about a resolution that would condemn Israeli settlements.
Obviously, the Israeli government did not want this resolution to be passed. Instead of going
directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible relations, they went to
Trump instead. They approached Michael Flynn and Jared Kushner became involved in this. While
they were in the transition and before having any official capacity, they negotiated with
various members of the Security Council to try to quash the settlement resolution.
One of the issues here which is little known is the Logan Act, which was passed at the
foundation of our republic and was designed to prevent private citizens from usurping the
foreign policy prerogatives of the executive. It criminalized any private citizen who attempted
to negotiate with an enemy country over any foreign policy issue.
In this case, what Flynn and Kushner were doing was going directly against US foreign
policy, because Obama wanted the resolution to pass; He just didn't want to vote for it because
that would cross the Israel lobby in the United States. The US finally ended up abstaining on
the resolution and it passed 14-0.
But before that happened, Flynn went to the Russians and to Egypt, both members of the
Security Council, and tried to get the resolution delayed. But all of Israel's machinations to
derail this resolution failed and that is what Mueller was investigating, the intervention and
disruption of American foreign policy by private citizens who had no official role.
This speaks to the power of the Israel lobby and of Israel itself to disrupt our foreign
policy. Very few people have ever been charged with committing an illegal act by advocating on
behalf of Israel. That is one of the reasons why this is such an important development. Until
now, the lobby has really ruled supreme on the issue of Israel and Palestine in US foreign
policy. Now it is possible that a private citizen will actually be made to pay a price for
that.
This is an important development because the lobby till now has run roughshod over our
foreign policy in this area and this may act as a restraining order against blatant disruption
of US foreign policy by people like this.
Bernstein: So this information is a part of Michael Flynn's plea. Anyone studying this would
learn something about Michael Flynn and it would be part of the prosecution's
investigation.
Silverstein:
That's absolutely right. One thing to note here is that it is reporters who
have raised the issue of the Logan Act, not Mueller or Flynn's people or anyone in the Trump
administration. But I do think that Logan is a very important part of this plea deal, even if
it is not mentioned explicitly.
Bernstein: If the special prosecutor had smoking-gun information that the Trump
administration colluded with Russia, in the way they colluded with Israel before coming to
power, this would be a huge revelation. But it is definitely collusion when it comes to
Israel.
Silverstein: Absolutely. If this were Russia, it would be on the front page of every major
newspaper in the United States and the leading story on the TV news. Because this is Israel and
because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel lobby and they have so much influence
on US policy concerning Israel, it has managed to stay on the back burner. Only two or three
media outlets besides mine have raised this issue of Logan and collusion. Kushner and Flynn may
be the first American citizens charged under the Logan Act for interfering on behalf of Israel
in our foreign policy. This is a huge issue and it has hardly been raised at all.
Bernstein: As you know, Rachel Maddow of MSNBC has made a career out of investigating the
Russia-gate charges. She says that she has read all this material carefully, so she must have
read about Flynn and Israel, but I haven't heard her on this issue at all.
Silverstein:
Even progressive journalists, who you'd think would be going after this with a
vengeance, are frightened off by the fact the lobby really bites back. So, aside from outlets
like the Intercept and the Electronic Intifada, there is a lot of hesitation about going after
the Israel lobby. People are afraid because they know that there is a high price to be paid. It
goes from being purely journalism to being a personal and political vendetta when they get you
in their sights. In fact, one of the reasons I feel my blog is so important is that what I do
is challenge Israeli policy and Israeli intervention in places where it doesn't belong.
Bernstein: Jared Kushner is the point man for the Trump administration on Israel. He has
talked about having a "vision for peace." Do you think it is a problem that this is someone
with a long, close relationship with the prime minister of Israel and, in fact, runs a
foundation that invests in the building of illegal Israeli settlements? Might this be
problematic?
Silverstein:
It is quite nefarious, actually. When Jared Kushner was a teenager, Netanyahu
used to stay at the Kushner family home when he visited the United States. This relationship
with one of the most extreme right political figures in Israel goes back decades. And it is not
just Kushner himself, but all the administration personnel dealing with these so-called peace
negotiations, including Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman, the ambassador. These are all
orthodox Jews who tend to have very nationalist views when it comes to Israel. They all support
settlements financially through foundations. These are not honest brokers.
We could talk at length about the history of US personnel who have been negotiators for
Middle East peace. All of them have been favorable to Israel and answerable to the Israel
lobby, including Dennis Ross and Makovsky, who served in the last administration. These people
are dyed-in-the-wool ultra-nationalist supporters of [Israeli] settlements. They have no
business playing any role in negotiating a peace deal.
My prediction all along has been that these peace negotiations will come to naught, even
though they seem to have bought the cooperation of Saudi Arabia, which is something new in the
process. The Palestinians can never accept a deal that has been negotiated by Kushner and
company because it will be far too favorable to Israel and it will totally neglect the
interests of the Palestinians.
Bernstein: It has been revealed that Kushner supports the building of settlements in the
West Bank. Most people don't understand the politics of what is going on there, but it appears
to be part of an ethnic cleansing.
Silverstein:
The settlements have always been a violation of international law, ever since
Israel conquered the West Bank in 1967. The Geneva Conventions direct an occupying power to
withdraw from territory that was not its own. In 1967 Israel invaded Arab states and conquered
the West Bank and Gaza but this has never been recognized or accepted by any nation until
now.
The fact that Kushner and his family are intimately involved in supporting
settlements–as are David Friedman and Jason Greenblatt–is completely outrageous. No
member of any previous US administration would have been allowed to participate with these
kinds of financial investments in support of settlements. Of course, Trump doesn't understand
the concept of conflict of interest because he is heavily involved in such conflicts himself.
But no party in the Middle East except Israel is going to consider the US an honest broker and
acceptable as a mediator.
When they announce this deal next January, no one in the Arab World is going to accept it,
with the possible exception of Saudi Arabia because they have other fish to fry in terms of
Iran. The next three years are going to be interesting, supposing Trump lasts out his term. My
prediction is that the peace plan will fail and that it will lead to greater violence in the
Middle East. It will not simply lead to a vacuum, it will lead to a deterioration in conditions
there.
Bernstein: The Trump transition team was actually approached directly by the Israeli
government to try to intercede at the United Nations.
Silverstein:
I'm assuming it was Netanyahu who went directly to Kushner and Trump. Now, we
haven't yet found out that Trump directly knew about this but it is very hard to believe
that Trump didn't endorse this. Now that we know that Mueller has access to all of the emails
of the transition team, there is little doubt that they have been able to find their smoking
gun. Flynn's plea meant that they basically had him dead to rights. It remains to be seen what
will happen with Kushner but I would think that this would play some role in either the
prosecution of Kushner or some plea deal.
Bernstein: The other big story, of course, is the decision by the Trump administration to
move the US embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. Was there any pre-election collusion in that
regard and what are the implications?
Silverstein:
Well, it's a terrible decision which goes against forty to fifty years of US
foreign policy. It also breaches all international understanding. All of our allies in the
European Union and elsewhere are aghast at this development. There is now a campaign in the
United Nations Security Council to pass a resolution condemning the announcement, which we will
veto, but the next step will be to go to the General Assembly, where such a resolution will
pass easily.
The question is how much anger, violence and disruption this is going to cause around the
world, especially in the Arab and Muslim world. This is a slow-burning fuse. It is not going to
explode right now. The issue of Jerusalem is so vital that this is not something that is simply
going to go away. This is going to be a festering sore in the Muslim world and among
Palestinians. We have already seen attacks on Israeli soldiers and citizens and there will be
many more.
As to collusion in all of this, since Trump always said during the campaign that this was
what he was going to do, it might be difficult to treat this in the same way as the UN
resolution. The UN resolution was never on anybody's radar and nobody knew the role that Trump
was playing behind the scenes with that–as opposed to Trump saying right from the get-go
that Jerusalem was going to be recognized as the capital of Jerusalem.
By doing that, they have completely abrogated any Palestinian interest in Jerusalem. This is
a catastrophic decision that really excludes the United States from being an honest broker here
and shows our true colors in terms of how pro-Israel we are.
As most regular readers of CN already know, some dynamite books on the inordinate amount
of influence pro-Israel zealots have on Washington:
1.) 'The Host and the Parasite' by Greg Felton
2.) 'Power of Israel in the United States' by James Petras
3.) 'They Dare to Speak Out' by Paul Findley
4.) 'The Israel Lobby' by Mearsheimer and Walt
5.) 'Zionism, Militarism and the Decline of U.S. Power' by James Petras
I suggest that anyone relatively knew to this neglected topic peruse a few of the
aforementioned titles. An inevitable backlash by the citizens of the United States is
eventually forthcoming against the Zionist Power Configuration. It's crucial that this
impending backlash remain democratic, non-violent, eschews anti-Semitism, and travels in a
progressive in direction.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 5:47 pm
Which one would you suggest? I already read "The Israel Lobby."
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:38 pm
Findley and Mearsheimer are certainly worthwhile. I will look for Petras.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:38 pm
If you haven't already read them, the end/footnotes in "The Israel Lobby" are more
illuminating.
That influence is also shown, of course, by the fact that Obama waited until the midnight
hours of his tenure and after the 2016 election to even start working on this resolution.
While I think Bibi is an idiot, I also think the Logan Act is overinvoked, overstated,
probably of dubious legal value and also of dubious constitutional value.
In short, especially because Trump had been elected, though not yet inaugurated, I think
he is not at all guilty of a Logan Act violation. This is nothing close to Spiro Agnew
calling Anna Chenault from the airplane in August 1968.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:41 pm
Probably true, although evidence of extreme collusion with Israel eliminates any case
against Russia, with whom we have far more reasons for amity. Bringing out the Israel
collusion greatly improves public understanding of political corruption. Perhaps it will
awaken some to the Agnew-Chennault betrayal of the people of the US.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:32 am
It's ironic that Russia-gate is turning out to be Israel's effort to distract attention
from its complete control over the Democratic party in 2016. From Israeli billionaires behind
the scenes to Debbie Wasserman-Schultz at the helm.
The leaked emails showed the corruption
plainly, and based on the ACTUAL evidence (recorded download time), most likely came from a
highly disgruntled insider. The picture was starting to spill into public view. I'd estimate
the real huge worry was that if this stuff came out, it could bring out other Israeli
secrets, like their involvement in 9/11. That would mean actual jail time. Might be hard to
buy your way out of that no matter how much money you have.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 10:48 pm
The Logan act states that anyone who negotiates with an enemy of the US, and Israel is not
defined as an enemy.
Annie , December 23, 2017 at 6:59 pm
The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would. I don't think anyone has
been convicted based on this act, and they were part of a transition team not to mention the
Logan act clearly states a private citizen who attempts to negotiate with an enemy state, and
that certainly doesn't apply to Israel. In this administration their bias is so blatant that
they can install Kushner as an honest broker in the Israeli-Palestine peace process while his
family has a close relationship with Netanyahu, and he runs a foundation that invests in the
building of illegal settlements which goes against the Geneva conventions. Hopefully Trump's
blatant siding with Israel will receive a lot of backlash as did his plan to make Jerusalem
the capital of Israel.
I also found that so called progressive internet sites don't cover this the way they
should.
Al Pinto , December 24, 2017 at 9:16 am
@Annie
"The Logan act would not apply here, although I wish it would."
You and me both .
From the point of starting to read this article, it has been in my mind that the Logan act
would not apply here. After reading most of the comments, it became clear that not many
people viewed this as such. Yes, Joe Tedesky did as well
The UN is the "clearing house" for international politics, where countries freely contact
each other's for getting support for their cause behind the scene. The support sought after
could be voting for or against the resolution on hand. At times, as Israel did, countries
reach out to perceived enemies as well, if they could not secure sufficient support for their
cause. This is the normal activity of the UN diplomacy.
Knowing that the outgoing administration would not support its cause, Israel reached out
to the incoming administration to delay the vote on the UN resolution. I fail to see anything
wrong with Israel's action even in this case; Israel is not an enemy state to the US. As
such, there has been no violation of any acts by the incoming administration, even if they
tried to secure veto vote for Israel. I do not like it, but no action by Mueller in this case
is correct.
People, just like the article in itself, implying that the Logan Act applies in this case
are just plain wrong. Not just wrong, but their anti-Israel bias is in plain view.
Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state. Even then, Russia contacting the incoming administration is not a violation of
the Logan Act. That is just normal diplomacy in the background between countries. What would
be a violation is that the contacted official acted on the behalf of Russia and tried to
influence the outgoing administration's decision. That is what the Mueller investigation
tries to prove hopelessly
"Whether we like it or not, the former and current administration view Russia is as an
enemy state." So that is how it works, the White House says it is an enemy state and
therefore it is. The so called declaration is the hammer used for trying to make contact with
Russia a criminal offense. We are not at war with Russia although we see our leaders doing
their best to provoke Russia into one.
Annie , December 24, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Thanks for your reply. When I read the article and it referenced the Logan Act, which I am
familiar with in that I've read about it before, I was surprised that Bernstein and
Silverstein even brought it up because it so obviously does not apply in this case, since
Israel is not considered an enemy state. Many have even referenced it as flimsy when it comes
to convictions against those in Trump's transition team who had contacts with Russia. No one
has ever been convicted under the Logan Act.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:41 pm
The Logan Act either should apply equally, or not apply at all. This "Russia-gate" hype
seems to apply it selectively.
mrtmbrnmn , December 23, 2017 at 7:36 pm
You guys are blinded by the light. The Israel connection disclosed by the malpracticer
hack Mueller in the recent Flynn-flam just made Trump bullet-proof (so to speak).
There is no doubt that Trump is Bibi's and the Saudi's ventriloquist dummy and Jared has
been an Israel agent of influence since he was 12.
But half the Dementedcrat Sore Loser Brigade will withdraw from the field of battle (not
to mention most of the GOP living dead too) if publically and noisily tying Israel to Trump's
tail becomes the only route to his removal. Which it would have to be, as there is no there
there regarding the yearlong trumped-up PutinPutinPutin waterboarding of Trump.
Immediately (if not sooner) the mighty (pro-Israel) Donor Bank of Singer (Paul), Saban
(Haim), Sachs (Goldman) & Adelson (Sheldon), would change their passwords and leave these
politicians/beggars with empty begging bowls. End of $ordid $tory.
alley cat , December 23, 2017 at 7:45 pm
So Mueller caught Kushner and Flynn red-handed, sabotaging the Obama administration? What
of it? He can't use that evidence, because it would inculpate the Zionist neocons that are
orchestrating his farcical, Stalinist witchhunt. And Mueller, being an efficient terminator
bot, knows that his target is Russia, not Israel.
Mueller can use that evidence of sabotage and/or obstruction of justice to try to coerce
false confessions from Kushner and Flynn. But what are the chances of that, barring short
stayovers for them at some CIA black site?
So Mueller will just have to continue swamp-fishing for potential perjurers ahem
witnesses, for the upcoming show trials (to further inflame public opinion against Russia and
Russia sympathizers). And continue he will, because (as we all know from Schwarzenegger's
flicks), the only way to stop the terminator is to terminate him/it first.
Leslie F. , December 23, 2017 at 8:28 pm
He used it, along with other info, to turn flip Flynn and possibly can use it the same way
again Kusher. Not all evidence has end up in court to be useful.
JWalters , December 23, 2017 at 8:40 pm
This is an extremely important story, excellently reported. All the main "facts" Americans
think they know about Israel are, amazingly, flat-out lies.
1. Israel was NOT victimized by powerful Arab armies. Israel overpowered and victimized a
defenseless, civilian Arab population. Military analysts knew the Arab armies were in poor
shape and would not be able to resist the zionist army.
2. Muslim "citizens" of Israel do NOT have all the same rights as Jews.
3. Israelis are NOT under threat from the indigineous Palestinians, but Palestinians are
under constant threats of theft and death from the Israelis.
4. Israel does NOT share America's most fundamental values, which rest on the principle of
equal human rights for all.
Maintaining such a blanket of major lies for decades requires immense power. And this
power would have to be exercised "under the radar" to be effective. That requires even more
power. Both Congress and the press have to be controlled. How much power does it take to turn
"Progressive Rachel" into "Tel Aviv Rachel"? To turn "It Takes a Village" Hillary into
"Slaughter a Village" Hillary? It takes immense power AND ruthlessness.
War profiteers have exactly this combination of immense war profits and the ruthlessness
to victimize millions of people. "War Profiteers and the Roots of the War on Terror" http://warprofiteerstory.blogspot.com
Vast war profits easily afford to buy the mainstream media. And controlling campaign
contributions for members of Congress is amazingly cheap in the big picture. Such a squalid
sale of souls.
And when simple bribery is not enough, they ruin a person's life through blackmail or
false character assassination. And if those don't work they use death threats, including to
family members, and finally murder. Their ruthlessness is unrestrained. John Perkins has
described these tactics in "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".
For readers who haven't seen it, here is an excellent riff on the absurdly overwhelming
evidence for Israel's influence compared to that of Russia, at a highly professional news and
analysis website run by Jewish anti-Zionists. "Let's talk about Russian influence" http://mondoweiss.net/2016/08/about-russian-influence/
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:44 pm
Hitler and Mussolini, Trump and Netanyahoo – matches made in Hell. These characters
are so obviously, blatantly evil that it is deeply disturbing that people fail to see that,
and instead go to great lengths to find some complicated flaws in these monsters.
mike k , December 23, 2017 at 8:49 pm
Keep it simple folks. No need for complex analyses. Just remember that these characters as
simply as evil as it gets, and proceed from there. These asinine shows that portray mobsters
as complex human beings are dangerously deluding. If you want to be victimized by these
types, this kind of overthinking is just the way to go.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 9:00 pm
There is a modern theory of fiction that insists upon the portrayal of inconsistency in
characters, both among the good guys and the bad guys. It is useful to show how those who do
wrongs have made specific kinds of errors that make them abnormal, and that those who do
right are not perfect but nonetheless did the right thing. Instead it is used by commercial
writers to argue that the good are really bad, and the bad are really good, which is of
course the philosophy of oligarchy-controlled mass publishers.
Sam F , December 23, 2017 at 8:54 pm
A very important article by Dennis Bernstein, and it is very appropriate that non-zionist
Jews are active against the extreme zionist corruption of our federal government. I am sure
that they are reviled by the zionists for interfering with the false denunciations of racism
against the opponents of zionism. Indeed critics face a very nearly totalitarian power of
zionism, which in league with MIC/WallSt opportunism has displaced democracy altogether in
the US.
backwardsevolution , December 23, 2017 at 9:18 pm
A nice little set-up by the Obama administration. Perhaps it was entrapment? Who set it
up? Flynn and Kushner should have known better to fall for it. So at the end of his
Presidency, Obama suddenly gets balls and wants to slap down Israel? Yeah, right.
Nice to have leverage over people, though, isn't it? If you're lucky and play your cards
right, you might even be lucky enough to land an impeachment.
Of course, I'm just being cynical. No one would want to overturn democracy, would
they?
Certainly people like Comey, Brenner, Clinton, Clapper, Mueller, Rosenstein wouldn't want
that, would they?
Joe Tedesky , December 23, 2017 at 10:33 pm
I just can't see any special prosecutor investigating Israel-Gate. Between what the
Zionist donors donate to these creepy politicians, too what goods they have on these same
mischievous politicians, I just can't see any investigation into Israel's collusion with the
Trump Administration going anywhere. Netanyahu isn't Putin, and Russia isn't Israel. Plus,
Israel is considered a U.S. ally, while Russia is being marked as a Washington rival. Sorry,
this news regarding Israel isn't going to be ranted on about for the next 18 months, like the
MSM has done with Russia, because our dear old Israel is the only democracy in the Middle
East, or so they tell us. So, don't get your hopes up.
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:33 am
It's true the Israelis have America's politicians by the ears and the balls. But as this
story gets better known, politicians will start getting questions at their town meetings.
Increasingly the politicians will gag on what Israel is force-feeding them, until finally
they reach a critical mass of vomit in Congress.
Joe Tedesky , December 24, 2017 at 11:12 am
I hope you are right JWalters. Although relying on a Zionist controlled MSM doesn't give
hope for the news getting out properly. Again I hope you are right JWalters. Joe
Actually, Netanyahu was so desperate to have the resolution pulled and not voted on that
he reached out to any country that might help him after the foreign minister of New Zealand,
one of its co-sponsors refused to pull the plug after a testy phone exchange with the Israeli
PM ending up threatening an Israeli boycott oturnef the KIwis.
He then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin, who owed him a favor for having Israel's UN
delegate absent himself for the UNGA vote on sanctioning Russia after its annexation of
Crimea.
Putin then called Russia's UN Ambassador, Vitaly Churkin, since deceased, and asked him to
get the other UNSC ambassadors to postpone the vote until Trump took over the White House but
the other ambassadors weren't buying it. Given Russia's historic public position regarding
the settlements, Churkin had no choice to vote Yes with the others.
This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the US which,
due to Zionist influence on the media, does not want the American public to know about the
close ties between Putin and Netanyahu which has led to the Israeli PM making five state
visits there in the last year and a half.
Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US veto. That
Netanyahu apparently knew in advance that the US planned to veto the resolution was, I
suspect, leaked to the Israelis by US delegate Samantha Power, who was clearly unhappy at
having to abstain.
Abe , December 24, 2017 at 12:39 am
The Israeli Prime Minister made five state visits to Russia in the last year and a half to
make sure the Russians don't accidentally on purpose blast Israeli warplanes from the sky
over Syria (like they oughtta). Putin tries not to snicker when Netanyahu bloviates ad
nauseum about the purported "threat" posed by Iran.
He thinks Putin is a RATS ASS like the yankee government
JWalters , December 24, 2017 at 3:34 am
"This story was reported in detail in the Israeli press but blacked out in the
US"
We've just had a whole cluster of big stories involving Israel that have all been
essentially blacked out in the US press. e.g. "Dionne and Shields ignore the Adelson in the room" http://mondoweiss.net/2017/12/jerusalem-israels-capital
This is not due to chance. There is no doubt that the US mainstream media is wholly
controlled by the Israelis.
alley cat , December 24, 2017 at 4:49 am
"He [Netanyahu] then turned to his buddy, Vladimir Putin "
Jeff, that characterization of Putin and Netanyahu's relationship makes no sense, since
the Russians have consistently opposed Zionism and Putin has been no exception, having
spoiled Zionist plans for the destruction of Syria.
"Had Clinton won the White House we can assume that there would have been no US
veto."
Not sure where you're going with that, since the US vote was up to Obama, who wanted to
get some payback for all of Bibi's efforts to sabotage Obama's treaty with Iran.
For the record, Zionism has had no more rabid supporter than the Dragon Lady. If we're
going to make assumptions, we could start by assuming that if she had won the White House
we'd all be dead by now, thanks to her obsession (at the instigation of her Zionist/neocon
sponsors) with declaring no-fly zones in Syria.
Brendan , December 24, 2017 at 6:18 am
Trump and Kushner have nothing to worry about, even if a smoking gun is found that proves
their collusion with Israel. That's because the entire political and media establishment will
simply ignore the Israeli connection.
Journalists and politicians will even continue to present Mike Flynn's contacts as
evidence of collusion with Russia. They'll keep on repeating that "Flynn lied about his phone
call to the Russian ambassador". But there will be no mention of the fact that the purpose of
this contact was to support Israel and not any alleged Russian interference.
Skip Scott , December 24, 2017 at 7:59 am
I think you have it right Brendan. The MSM, Intelligence Community, and Mueller would
never go down any path that popularized undue Israeli influence on US foreign policy.
"Nothing to see here folks, move along."
The zionist will stop at nothing to control the middle east with American taxpayers
money/military equiptment its a win win for the zionist they control America lock stock and
barrel a pity though it is a great country to be led by a jewish entity.
What will Israel-Palestine look like twenty years from now? Will it remain an apartheid
regime, a regime without any Palestinians, or something different. The Trump decision, which
the world rejects, brings the issue of "final" settlement to the fore. In a way we can go
back to the thirties and the British Mandate. Jewish were fleeing Europe, many coming to
Palestine. The British, on behalf of the Zionists, were delaying declaring Palestine a state
with control of its own affairs. Seeing the mass immigration and chafing at British foot
dragging, the Arabs rebelled, What happened then was that the British, responding to numerous
pressures notably war with Germany, acted by granting independence and granting Palestine
control of its borders.
With American pressure and the mass exodus of Jews from Europe, Jews defied the British
resulting in Jewish resistance. What followed then was a UN plan to divide the land with a
Jerusalem an international city administered by the UN. The Arabs rebelled and lost much of
what the UN plan provided and Jerusalem as an international city was scrapped.
Will there be a second serious attempt to settle the issue of the land and the status of
Jerusalem? Will there be a serious move toward a single state? How will the matter of
Jerusalem be resolved. The two state solution has always been a fantasy and acquiescence of
Palestinians to engage in this charade exposes their leaders to charges of posturing for
perks. Imagined options could go on and on but will there be serious options placed before
the world community or will the boots on the ground Israeli policies continue?
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 1:34 pm
As I have commented before, it will most probably be the Jewish community in Israel and
the world that shapes the future and if the matter is to be resolved that is fair to both
parties, it will be they that starts the ball rolling.
The Nice Zionists responsible for the thefts and murders for the past 69 years along with
the "Jewish Community" in the rest of the world will resolve the matter so as to be fair to
both parties. This is mind-boggling fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Truly mind-boggling. Ahistorical, and as you say, fantasy.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 5:48 pm
FFS, Netanyahu aired a political commercial in Florida for Romney saying vote for this guy
(against Obama)! I mean, it doesn't get any more overtly manipulative than that. Period. End
of story.
$50K of Facebook ads about puppies pales in comparison to that blatant, prima facia,
public manipulation. God, I hate to go all "Israel controls the media" but there it is. Not even a discussion. Just a fact.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Just for the record, Richard Silverstein blocked me on Twitter because I pointed out that
he slammed someone who was suggesting that the Assad government was fighting for its
(Syria's) life by fighting terrorists. Actually, more specifically, because of that he read
my "Free Palestine" bio on Twitter and called me a Hamas supporter (no Hamas mentioned) and a
"moron" for some seeming contradiction.
I also have to point out that he "fist pumped" Hillary Clinton at Mohammed Ali's eulogy.
If he's as astute as he purports to be, he has to know that Hillary would have invaded Syria
and killed a few hundred thousand more Syrians for the simple act of defiantly preserving
their country. By almost any read of Ali's history, he would have been adamantly ("killing
brown people") against that. But there was Silverstein using the platform to promote,
arguably, perpetual war.
Silverstein is probably not a good (ie. consistent) arbiter of Israeli impact on US
politics. Just sayin'.
This may be a tad ot but it relates to the alleged hacking of the DNC, the role debbie
wasserman schultz plays in the spy ring (awan bros) in house of rep servers: I have long
suspected that mossad has their fingers in this entire mess. FWIW
Good site, BTW.
Zachary Smith , December 24, 2017 at 7:35 pm
I can't recall why I removed the Tikun Olam site from my bookmarks – it happened
quite a while back. Generally I do that when I feel the blogger crossed some kind of personal
red line. Something Mr. Silverstein wrote put him over that line with me.
In the course of a search I found that at the neocon NYT. Mr. Silverstein claims several
things I find unbelievable, and from that alone I wonder about his ultimate motives. I may be
excessively touchy about this, but that's how it is.
Larry Larsen , December 24, 2017 at 8:51 pm
Yeah Zachary, "wondering about ultimate motives" is probably a good way to put it/his
views. He's obviously conflicted, if not deferential in some aspects of Israeli policy. He
really was a hero of mine, but now I just don't get whether what he says is masking something
or a true belief. He says some good stuff, but, but, but .
P. Michael Garber , December 24, 2017 at 11:54 pm
Yeah I found a couple of Silverstein's statements to be closer to neocon propaganda than
reality: "Because this is Israel and because we have a conflicted relationship with the Israel
lobby . . ." "Instead of going directly to the Obama administration, with which they had terrible
relations, they went to Trump instead." My impression was that the whole "terrible relationship between Obama and Netanyahu" was
manufactured by the Israel lobby to bully Obama. However these are small blips within an otherwise solid critique of the Israel lobby's
influence.
re: "napoleon , karl 12, Germans twice , etc all tried... no success "
Yes. Correct. But they all 'tried.' One thing is for certain: You WILL get a HORRIFIC fight when you try and invade Russia. Just as sure as death and taxes, the
sun will rise in the east and set in the west, you WILL get a fight if you 'try' to invade Russia.
I read an article a few years ago about 'how stupid it was' to attack Russia, and that the 'window to militarily invade Russia
had now closed' because of Russia's re-armament program.
Some general or politician was talking about how 'Russia has no military aspirations against its neighbours; and said this
about 'the West' "Just make sure your sons and daughters are in the front line... "we'll even let them fire the first shot."
I thought it was funny at the time, but in hindsight it is quite chilling. If the West is so confident about attacking Russia,
put your children in the front line and tell them it's okay to shoot. I wonder how many war-monger politicians would step up the
challenge.
Some time ago I erroneously wrote that Putin would nationalize the Central Bank of Russia on January 1st, 2018. I hadn't taken
into account the legal hurdle of amending the Russian constitution - Russia IS an Actual democracy after-all - which obviously
cannot happen until after Putin is re-elected on March 18, 2018. A few months after that I expect the Rothschilds to be evicted.
Over the years both Russia and China - and probably most of the world outside of the 'indispensable nation's most degenerate
self-loathing "allies" - have come to the realization that the US has NO gold whatsoever, and can be easily taken out economically
with some patience and pre-planning.
IF the USA has "8,000 tons" of gold then why is it taking them 6-10 years to 're-repatriate' a few hundred tons of German gold?
Or why did the US go to such great lengths to steal Ukraine's paltry 20-40 tons, or Libya's relatively infinitesimal reserves?
Or why did 100 tons of the Canadian Bank of Nova Scotia's gold "disappear" from the deep hardened vaults of World Trade Center
2 on 9/11? Why are paper-backed gold ETFs even LEGAL to be traded??? Obviously they are only worth the PAPER they are printed
on, no?
The answer is blindingly obvious: there is not a single fucking solitary ounce of gold left in Fort Knucklehead or the NY Rothschild
Federal Reserve building's vaults,or why Fort Knox god reserves have not been audited in almost SIXTY YEARS.
I am confident in stating that I PERSONALLY own more physical gold than the US government. If you own a gold watch, a wedding
ring, a fucking EAR RING, then you probably do as well. The US dollar is Fiat...why the fuck would their gold not be just as phony?
I think both Russia and China are VASTLY understating their gold reserves. I believe they have over 10,000 tons each, at a
bare minimum. THAT, at least, has some circumstantial ring of truth, judging by events - ESPECIALLY the fact that the world's
FED-run Central Banks have been suppressing the value of gold for Decades. Why would they do that if they actually HAD the gold
they claim to have???
PROTOCOL No. 22
1. I have endeavoured to depict with care the secret of our relations to the GOYIM and of financial operations. On this subject
there remains still a little for me to add.
2. IN OUR HANDS IS THE GREATEST POWER OF OUR DAY - GOLD:
IN TWO DAYS WE CAN PROCURE FROM OUR STOREHOUSES ANY QUANTITY WE MAY PLEASE.
re: "I think both Russia and China are VASTLY understating their gold reserves. I believe they have over 10,000 tons each,
at a bare minimum."
Agreed! Russia is a gold 'producer.' And for a while Russia was 'buying gold on the open market,' until 'they started buying
their own.' I appreciate there are privatised companies and business that need to be taken into consideration in this equation,
but on a macro level it is a bit counter intuitive. Would a business man willing pay the 'market rate' for a product they can
'produce themselves for cheaper?' It doesn't make sense. I think Russia has been understating their gold reserves for quite some
time and this is part of 'flying under the radar' until someone tries to put the pressure on them.
"... The new 55-page "America First" National Security Strategy (NSS), drafted over the course of 2017, defines Russia and China as "revisionist" powers, "rivals," and for all practical purposes strategic competitors of the United States. ..."
"... The NSS stops short of defining Russia and China as enemies, allowing for an "attempt to build a great partnership with those and other countries." Still, Beijing qualified it as "reckless" and "irrational." The Kremlin noted its "imperialist character" and "disregard for a multipolar world." Iran, predictably, is described by the NSS as "the world's most significant state sponsor of terrorism." ..."
"Russia and China ... have concluded that pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds
... is an unsustainable proposition ..." Pepe Escobar 12,072
198
The new 55-page "America First" National
Security Strategy (NSS), drafted over the course of 2017, defines Russia and China as
"revisionist" powers, "rivals," and for all practical purposes strategic competitors of the
United States.
The NSS stops short of defining Russia and China as enemies, allowing for an "attempt to
build a great partnership with those and other countries." Still, Beijing qualified it as
"reckless" and "irrational." The Kremlin noted its "imperialist character" and "disregard for a
multipolar world." Iran, predictably, is described by the NSS as "the world's most significant
state sponsor of terrorism."
Russia, China and Iran happen to be the three key movers and shakers in the ongoing
geopolitical and geo-economic process of Eurasia integration.
The NSS can certainly be regarded as a response to what happened at the BRICS summit in Xiamen last
September. Then, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted on "the BRIC countries' concerns
over the unfairness of the global financial and economic architecture which does not give due
regard to the growing weight of the emerging economies," and stressed the need to "overcome the
excessive domination of a limited number of reserve currencies."
That was a clear reference to the US dollar, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of total
reserve currency around the world and remains the benchmark determining the price of energy and
strategic raw materials.
And that brings us to the unnamed secret at the heart of the NSS; the Russia-China "threat"
to the US dollar.
The CIPS/SWIFT face-off
The website of the China Foreign Exchange Trade System (CFETS) recently
announced the establishment of a yuan-ruble payment system, hinting that similar systems
regarding other currencies participating in the New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative
(BRI) will also be in place in the near future.
Crucially, this is not about reducing currency risk; after all Russia and China have
increasingly traded bilaterally in their own currencies since the 2014 US-imposed sanctions on
Russia. This is about the implementation of a huge, new alternative reserve currency zone,
bypassing the US dollar.
The decision follows the establishment by Beijing, in October 2015, of the China
International Payments System (CIPS). CIPS has a cooperation agreement with the private,
Belgium-based SWIFT international bank clearing system, through which virtually every global
transaction must transit.
What matters, in this case, is that Beijing – as well as Moscow – clearly read
the writing on the wall when, in 2012, Washington applied pressure on SWIFT; blocked
international clearing for every Iranian bank; and froze $100 billion in Iranian assets
overseas as well as Tehran's potential to export oil. In the event that Washington might decide
to slap sanctions on China, bank clearing though CIPS works as a de facto sanctions-evading
mechanism.
Last March, Russia's central bank opened its first office in Beijing. Moscow is launching
its first $1 billion
yuan-denominated government bond sale. Moscow has made it very clear it is committed to a
long-term strategy to stop using the US dollar as their primary currency in global trade,
moving alongside Beijing towards what could be dubbed a post-Bretton Woods exchange system.
Gold is essential in this strategy. Russia, China, India, Brazil & South Africa are all
either large producers or consumers of gold – or both. Following what has been
extensively discussed in their summits since the early 2010s, the BRICS countries are bound to
focus on trading
physical gold .
Markets such as COMEX
actually trade derivatives on gold, and are backed by an insignificant amount of physical gold.
Major BRICS gold producers – especially the Russia-China partnership – plan to be
able to exercise extra influence in setting up global gold prices.
The ultimate politically charged dossier
Intractable questions referring to the US dollar as the top reserve currency have been
discussed at the highest levels of JP Morgan for at least five years now. There cannot be a
more politically charged dossier. The NSS duly sidestepped it.
The current state of play is still all about the petrodollar system; since last year, what
used to be a key, "secret" informal deal between the US and the House of Saud, is firmly in the
public domain .
Even warriors in the Hindu Kush may now be aware of how oil and virtually all commodities
must be traded in US dollars, and how these petrodollars are recycled into US Treasuries.
Through this mechanism, Washington has accumulated an astonishing $20 trillion in debt –
and counting.
Vast populations all across MENA (Middle East-Northern Africa) also learned what happened
when Iraq's Saddam Hussein decided to sell oil in euros, or when Muammar Gaddafi planned to
issue a pan-African gold dinar.
But now it's China who's entering the fray, following through on plans set up way back in
2012. And the name of the game is oil-futures trading priced in yuan, with the yuan fully
convertible into gold on the Shanghai and Hong Kong foreign exchange markets.
The Shanghai Futures Exchange and its subsidiary, the Shanghai International Energy Exchange
(INE) have already run four production environment tests for crude oil futures. Operations were
supposed to start at the end of 2017, but even if they start sometime in early 2018, the
fundamentals are clear: this triple win (oil/yuan/gold) completely bypasses the US dollar. The
era of the petro-yuan is at hand.
Of course, there are questions on how Beijing will technically manage to set up a rival mark
to Brent and WTI, or whether China's capital controls will influence it. Beijing has been quite
discreet on the triple win; the petro-yuan was not even mentioned in National Development and
Reform Commission documents following the 19th CCP Congress last October.
What's certain is that the BRICS countries supported the petro-yuan move at their summit in
Xiamen, as diplomats confirmed to Asia Times . Venezuela is also on board. It's
crucial to remember that Russia is number two and Venezuela is number seven among the world's
Top Ten oil producers. Considering the pull of China's economy, they may soon be joined by
other producers.
Yao Wei, chief China economist at Societe Generale in Paris, goes straight to the point,
remarking how "this contract has the potential to greatly help China's push for yuan
internationalization."
The hidden riches of "belt" and "road"
An extensive report by
DBS in Singapore hits most of the right notes linking the internationalization of the yuan
with the expansion of BRI.
In 2018, six major BRI projects will be on overdrive; the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed
railway, the China-Laos railway, the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway, the Hungary-Serbia railway,
the Melaka Gateway project in Malaysia, and the upgrading of Gwadar port in Pakistan.
HSBC estimates that
BRI as a whole will generate no less than an additional, game-changing $2.5 trillion worth of
new trade a year.
It's important to keep in mind that the "belt" in BRI should be seen as a series of
corridors connecting Eastern China with oil/gas-rich regions in Central Asia and the Middle
East, while the "roads" soon to be plied by high-speed rail traverse regions filled with
– what else - un-mined gold.
A key determinant of the future of the petro-yuan is what the House of Saud will do about
it. Should Crown Prince – and inevitable future king – MBS opt to follow Russia's
lead, to dub it as a paradigm shift would be the understatement of the century.
Yuan-denominated gold contracts will be traded not only in Shanghai and Hong Kong but also
in Dubai. Saudi Arabia is also considering to issue so-called Panda bonds, after the Emirate of
Sharjah is set to take the lead in the Middle East for Chinese interbank bonds.
Of course, the prelude to D-Day will be when the House of Saud officially announces it
accepts yuan for at least part of its exports to China.
A follower of the Austrian school of economics correctly asserts that for
oil-producing nations, higher oil price in US dollars is not as important as market share:
"They are increasingly able to choose in which currencies they want to trade."
What's clear is that the House of Saud simply cannot alienate China as one of its top
customers; it's Beijing who will dictate future terms. That may include extra pressure for
Chinese participation in Aramco's IPO. In parallel, Washington would see Riyadh embracing the
petro-yuan as the ultimate red line.
An independent
European report points to what may be the Chinese trump card: "an authorization to issue
treasury bills in yuan by Saudi Arabia," the creation of a Saudi investment fund, and the
acquisition of a 5% share of Aramco.
Nations under US sanctions, such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela, will be among the first to
embrace the petro-yuan. Smaller producers such as Angola and Nigeria are already selling
oil/gas to China in yuan.
And if you don't export oil but are part of BRI, such as Pakistan, the least you can do is
replace the US dollar in bilateral trade, as Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal is currently
evaluating.
A key feature of the geoeconomic heart of the world moving from the West towards Asia is
that by the start of the next decade the petro-yuan and trade bypassing the US dollar will be
certified facts on the ground across Eurasia.
The NSS for its part promises to preserve "peace through strength." As Washington currently
deploys no less than 291,000 troops in 183 countries and has sent Special Ops to no less than
149 nations in 2017 alone, it's hard to argue the US is at "peace" – especially when the
NSS seeks to channel even more resources to the industrial-military complex.
"Revisionist" Russia and China have committed an unpardonable sin; they have concluded that
pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds that allow the US Treasury to finance a
multi-trillion dollar deficit without raising interest rates is an unsustainable proposition
for the Global South. Their "threat" – under the framework of BRICS as well as the SCO,
which includes prospective members Iran and Turkey – is to increasingly settle bilateral
and multilateral trade bypassing the US dollar.
It ain't over till the fat (golden) lady sings. When the beginning of the end of the
petrodollar system – established by Kissinger in tandem with the House of Saud way back
in 1974 – becomes a fact on the ground, all eyes will be focused on the NSS
counterpunch.
China and Russia been dumping US bonds for a good while.
They just have to do it slowly, so they can get as much cash, to buy stolen discounted
gold with from the British Anglo Zionist Empire, as possible without tanking the
market.
The Federal reserve, prints currency, "loans" it to USA corporation, at USURY rates,
gives this currency to other "sovereign" puppet states such as Belgium, who then act like
they are buying the bonds for themselves.
It is a scam. Those who trust the USA/British Empire, will wind up with worthless
paper, while the Usury bankers, their bosses, China and Russia, will wind up with
gold.
All you USA worshipers should understand something.
He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Guess the western sheep are going to be the bitc#s of China and Russia for the next
century or so.
Hey Tim or whatever. Yep you always win huh? Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria,
Sudan, .ring any bells I could go on but you have been embarrassed enough with your msm
drivel. Always the weak and defenseless you lily livered chicken's. You better avoid war
with the two most powerful countries in the world. Can you guess? and neither are you
pedos and babykillers. You make me sick and disgusted. Voted again the most threat to
world peace. Ussa, ussa, ussa. Proud are ya all. The time is coming where you reap what
you have sown and on that day I shall dance my happy dance that you feel what you and
your evil countrymen have wrought in the world in the name of democracy and freedom hope
it is on cable! You rotten to the core people!
Here here, the US Holocaust, countless millions killed all over the globe as the USA
plunders, wars and props-up evil, despot regimes. Bin Laden, Taleban, just two of the US
former best allies, how long can a 200 year old, degenerate country like the USA keep
sponging-off/ using exploiting the worlds billions to enrich itself? USA... infested with
drugs, crime, rust belts, slums, homeless, street bums VAST inequality.
The Empire sells other peoples gold to China and Russia everyday, having stole and
sold Americans gold long since.
Works like this.
The not Federal, and no Reserve(s) dollar, is worth about 1 cent, of a 1913, pre Usury
criminal banker scam "dollar".
That 1 % is swiftly loosing it's value.
To keep the American people, from realizing, the USA, is using them for cattle, stealing
their labor, through planned hyperinflation,:
Israhell/Washington crime cabal, dumps massive amounts of "paper gold and silver", on the
market, each and every damn day the rigged market is open, in order to artificially keep
the price of gold and silver way the hell below where it should be priced in federal
reserve currency.
This hide s the true inflation rate of the not federal and no reserves private Usury
Banker Currency, falsely identified as the "US Dollar".
Israhell/Washington DC, does not have the physical gold and silver to cover what they
sell.
It is a criminal scam.
Those who buy this paper gold and silver, small guy, will never be given physical for the
paper.
Small guy, traded green paper for white paper. Either will be worthless soon.
Sovereigns, can buy enough of it, to demand delivery of physical.
The day the British Anglo zionist Empire defaults delivering physical gold, to China and
Russia, for the paper gold, is the day the curtain comes down on the illusion of the USA
financial empire.
Washington DC knows this, China knows this, Russia knows this.
In order to buy time, Israhell/Washington DC, has stolen, sold at hugely discounted
prices, to keep the dollar scam alive, just a while longer, all the gold they were
supposably storing for safe keeping, of other sovereigns.
They have stolen privately held gold, which was stored in commercial banks and vaults for
"safe keeping.
They stole the gold which went missing from the basement vaults in the world trade
centers, before they set off the demolition charges.
Then they sold it.
They stole and sold Ukraines gold.
They stole and sold, Libya's gold.
They had intended to have already stole and sold Syria's gold.
They are fast running out of other peoples gold, to deliver to China and Russia at huge
discounts, to prop up the scam, just a while longer.
The day there is no more stolen gold to deliver to China and Russia, the music stops, all
the chairs are removed, this game of musical chars is over. Starving Americans will eat
their pets, rats, and each other.
Thanks Israhell!
Thanks Washington DC/USA.
I want more information on this. Isabella said a similar thing. I want to know more...
So the U$T's that are in actual fact worthless, Russia is using to buy gold at a huge
discount to what should be the true market rate; and then Russia is storing this. I
understand the storing thing. I'm a straight forward kind-of-a-guy. But its the U.$.T.'s
to Physical Gold I can't get my head around.
Why is the U.$. honouring what is a knife-to-its-throat deal that is very soon going
to result in the collapse of the U.$. dollar? And according to this forum fully 20% of
Russia's reserves are still held in fiat U.$.T's..?
Why would Russia hold such a large percentage if its reserves in what will be
worthless U.$.T.'s when it knows that the U.$. is going to try and scam Russia and
default..?
Picture a crime family.
Some branches are pure evil.
Some not so evil.
Some are very open about their evil.
Some are sneaky hypocrites who use the news media to white wash their crimes, and vilify
their victims.
BUT! And this is one huge BUT, they all know too much on each other to start talking
too damn much.
Also, their criminal Empire, (shearing/raping/murdering the sheep for fun and profit) is
all tied together. Common banks, common/interchangeable fiat currencies, Usury debt
practices.
Take part of it down, the other part will suffer great losses, if not go down with
them.
Russia, and China, has gotten tired of the British Anglo zionist Empire lording it over
them and treating them like red headed step children.
Russia and China, have not seen the Light, are not operating for the sake of their
people, but to keep themselves in power, by returning to the people, some of the wealth
they stole from the people to begin with
British Anglo zionist pig fkers Empire, is too greedy to return any of the stolen
loot.
The BAzE, have a let them eat grass like the animals they are elitist attitude.
China and Russia, are trying to position themselves to come out on top when the economic
reset happens.
They both were FORCED, by Empire, to both buy and hold, huge stashes of both Federal
reserve fiat currency, and bonds, to do business in the rest of the world.
The USA military is the enforcement arm for the BAzE.
USA military is corrupted, demoralized, veterans fked over royally, weapons do not work
as their purpose, was to steal the labor of the American working man and women, not to
produce weapons which worked as advertised.
Russia and China, will continue to buy gold, buy time, to get in a better position to
give Uncle Sugar's pedophilic ass both middle fingers.
It is in their interest to do so.
The owners of the British Anglo zionist Empire, have their personal vaults filled with
stolen gold.
The politicians you see, the Rothschild's even, are window dressing to hide the true
owners, and to protect the true owners asses during slave revolts, by offering, kings,
queens, politicians, bankers, heads to get chopped.
These owners have no loyalty to any other person, or country in the world. They see
themselves as the chess players, humanity as the pieces, the earth as their personal
chess board.
They do not give a FF about America, the American people, or the hand puppet political
whore of DC/USA.
The hand puppet whores, are too stupid, and corrupt anyway, to understand whats coming,
or to have the power, intelligence, or balls to stop it
There are all kinds of fun and wealth created, for deviant sick bastards, in creating,
and tearing down empires.
Besides, all the death and destruction gets them sexually excited
Takes years of study, experience with, and intuition, to begin to understand their evil,
and the way the world really works.
Whether someone started years back, educating themselves, preparing for whats coming,
will determine if they will enter the kill zone as a sheep or not.
The only protection sheep have, is the hope, the jackals will rape and murder some other
sheep, not them. That is why they will not stand up or speak up.
That is why they violently attack anyone wants to leave the herd mentality, everyone else
forced to be in the same sheep state as them,
They are afraid the jackal will notice them individually.
Herd numbers and hiding in the herd, are the cowards only protection
Any day now, any week, not very many months, can the scam go on.
In other words, Americans might want to bone up on delicious recipes for Rats, cats, and
their neighbors.
re: "China and Russia been dumping US bonds for a good while.
They just have to do it slowly, so they can get as much cash, to buy stolen discounted
gold with from the British Anglo Zionist Empire, as possible without tanking the
market."
I have been reading this for a while. But I've yet to see it in practice. Rosneft is
still accepting U.$. dollars for oil/gas transactions, the most recent of which I believe
was the gas shipment from St Petersburg to Poland..?
https://tomluongo.me/2017/1...
What you buy by petrodollars ?
Saudi .Arabia buys arms. But SA has got millions of unemployed people , because they
studied Islamic religion , wahabist fanaticism ... Further SA employs millions of workers
from other countries. And owns US assets in value over 1 trillion dollars. So what else
to buy , where to spend their petrodollars? Only get billions dollars arms ,that are in
couple years useless...Population hate the fully corrupt royal family in numbers
approximately 40 thousands princess as they have to get about 500 thousands yearly
salaries...For doing nothing , only to spend it everywhere...
Populations hate US presence in SA. Very much.
But the Great Satan~USA adore such scum as the vile Crooked Saudi royal family, the
snakehead USA ignore all their anti-democracy, anti- human rights their beheading, their
evil ways, they worship money the US swine, its all they see and lap-up, plus they have
Russia/ China /Iran to pick on and blame not their evil Saudi- swine arms buyers.
View
Hide
At the moment, because the US is illegally holding gold prices down using uncovered
shorts on paper gold, and at the same time has used sanctions to devalue the rouble,
Russia is producing oil at reduced - rouble - rates, selling it on the international
market for U$, [artificially inflated] and buying massive amounts of cheap gold with the
huge profits she is making.
Russia is singing all the way to the bank right now. The US backed itself into a corner
on this one it cannot get out from - short of waging war on Russia !!!
Why should anyone who is in love with gold be upset if someone is holding the price
down? It should be a wonderful time to buy.
Russia is MINING gold, its own gold.
It is a great time to buy, if you have some spare cash to store, I agree. It's just a
poor time if you need to realise your gold - you wont get the price for it you should.
But indeed, it's a buyers market. Yes, Russia has a fair bit of gold "reserves" just
sitting in the ground.
There is the face the beast lets you see, and the real face of the beast.
You do not think the beast is stupid enough to show it's real face to all the sheep?
Really?
The sheep who are given personal attention in private places, see the real face of the
beast, because it sexually excites the beast for the chosen sheep to die bleating in
terror.
Guess you just got here you friggin troll. You know nothing you shill. Go back to the
basement mom has brought you dinner and cookies n milk and let the grown men talk, now
that is a good boy bye. Sorry John I have disappointed my Mom said be nice but idiots
bother me. Say hi to your lovely Mom for me and God bless. Merry Christmas everyone! Got
your back as always.
Glad you are so confident in the currency, which has lost 99% of it's buying power
since 1913, when the not Federal and no Reserve(s) was forced on the American people by
the Usury Banker ancestors of the owners of the 'Fed", buying USA politicians.
Where did that 99% value go?
To the I%ters. You know, the pedophile elite.
They want it all, they are coming for the other 1% of the "dollar's" value.
They are coming for Social security, government pensions, private pensions, checking
accounts, any thing with any value.
Oh by the way, just cause you are ignorant of how things work, don't mean they don't
work that way, just means you are ignorant.
Have a wonderful day now!
See mother, i was nice to the bad person who was trying to run interference for pedophile
baby rapers.
Good to see someone else Awake! A good portion of the Sheep are still sleeping, they
think the National Debt and Zero Interest Rates mean nothing (in the Eurozone Interest is
Negative). The US Dollar is soon to be Toilet Paper! Our Military can only overthrow
small countries that defy the PetroDollar system. Now with so many doing it, John
Carleton is right, the National Debt and Retirements Accounts are basically equal. That
is why Obutthead set the start of grabbing them by creating the MYRA, the Theory is the
Sheep are to stupid to manage their own retirement accounts, so the Government would grab
them and put them in a so called safe investment called "Treasury's". Unfortunately the
SS Trust Fund has been raided and is broke, but they do have drawers full of Treasuries.
Trump has to immediately open public lands for Mining & Drilling! A normalization of
Interest Rates to 5-6% would consume Government Revenues just to pay Interest on the
Debt!
Will work like this, they may already be doing it quietly.
Take private pensions.
They are already in trouble, having stocks, bonds, commercial real estate holdings.
All of these will become worthless, or close to it.
Anything with value, currency, decimal dollars, will be taken by the Washington thieves,
and worthless US bonds which will probably never be redeemed, or redeemed for chump
change, will be put in their place by Washington, as they "protect" the retirement
accounts.
Old people will eat rats, each other, dog and cats, die without medical care and meds
which they can not afford.
Some will eat their pistols.
Not going to be nice or orderly.
'Frankland Coverup Sex Scandal,
(pedophile prostitution ring being run out of Reagan's White House)
http://www.johnccarleton.or...
All pedo's, should be given a fair trial, and a fair hanging. A pedophile which was
given a fair trial, and a fair hanging, never again, raped a child.
Amazing how that works.
Correct and very easy at any given moment to be converted in a GOLD.Just follow
dynamic Russia and China buying GOLD on a world market and everything will be clear to
you
While all eyes are on the oil price and the ruble to dollar rate, the Central Bank of
Russia has quietly been buying huge volumes of gold over the past year. In January, 2016,
the latest data available, the Russian Central Bank again bought 22 tons of gold, around
$800 million at current exchange rates, that, amidst US and EU financial sanctions and
low oil prices. It was the eleventh month in a row they bought large gold volumes. For
2015 Russia added a record 208 tons of gold to her reserves compared with 172 tons for
2014. Russia now has 1,437 tonnes of gold in reserve, the sixth largest of any nation
according to the World Gold Council in London. Only USA, Germany, Italy, France and China
central banks hold a larger tonnage of gold reserves.
Notably also, the Russian central bank has been selling its holdings of US Treasury debt
to buy the gold, de facto de-dollarizing, a sensible move as the dollar is waging de
facto currency war against the ruble. As of December, 2015, Russia held $92 billion in US
Treasury Bonds down from $132 billion in January 2014.China bought another 17 tons of
gold in January and will buy a total of another 215 tons this year, approximately equal
to that of Russia. From August to January 2016 China added 101 tonnes of gold to its
reserves. Annual purchases of more than 200 tons by the PBOC would exceed the entire gold
holdings of all but about 20 countries, according to the World Gold Council. China's
central bank reserves of gold have risen 57% since 2009 acording to data the PBOC
revealed in July, 2015. Market watchers believe even that amount of gold in China's
central bank vaults is being politically vastly understated so as not to cause alarm
bells to ring too loud in Washington and London.
Dude stop your only making yourself look stupid by opening your gob and proving or in
this case writing. Merry Christmas or is it happy Hanukkah? Troll boy.
alexwest11 You are stupid ! a flat or house is real money you know ! They are
uneducated in Rothschild finance! are you a russlanddeutsche! or jew from holy ukraine
like poroschenko ?
Russia National Debt: $194,545,062,334
Interest per Year $12,805,556,000
Interest per Second $406
Debt per Citizen $1,330
Debt as % of GDP 19.32%
GDP $1,007,000,000,000
Population 146,300,000
Russia is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population after the
breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low deficits and their National Debt is very
low, they are one of the Countries that is best prepared for a major economic crash.
oncefiredbrass alexwest11 • 28 minutes ago Russia
is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population
after the breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low defic
--------
but facts say quite opposite!!!!!!!!
during oil selloff of 2008*9 Russian ruble fall 50%, from 23 to 37 per$
during oil selloff of 2014*15 Russian ruble fall 250 %, from 33 to almost 90 per$
right now its about 60 per $ , still 100% devaluation from 2014
-------
i don't remember $ fall against euro or yen during 2000 or/and 2008 crises in USA
The fall of the Ruble was an attack or sanction by the Obama Regime over Ukraine. Why
not trying to look up the Debt to GDP ratio for Russia and then the US and then ask
yourself what economy is actually in a better position to withstand a Depression. Russia
almost has enough Gold to back all their currency. How much gold would it take to back
all the Treasuries and Dollars that the US has spread all over the world?
Hey let the grown men talk baby boy! You are spouting msm talking points you're trying
to debate the choir about hymns. Your not going to make anyone here see the light because
you have no truths behind or in front. Msm drivel. One simple question! Who took Berlin?
In ww2 of course!
Me too. The U.S. has become the evil empire. The bully on the world stage stealing
everyone's lunch money. I know it will devastate us in Canada, but I would still rather
see the U.S. economy crumble if it would cripple their war machine, than to see this
situation go on. Ron Paul was right: Instead of war, why not pursue peaceful trade? But
the U.S. controllers want everyone else under their thumb as obedient serfs. It is evil.
And as Smedley Butler so bluntly put it "War is a Racket"! He said this because he was
sent to war with Guatemala on behalf of the United Fruit Company, aka Chiquita Brands
International. This time, they are trying to steal the lunch money from those who can
defend themselves. We aren't going to sit on our couch watching this war on TV, because
we will watch it out our front windows.
"... By contrast the reduction in the gas price Naftogaz refers to from $485/tcm to $352 tcm which Naftogaz makes much of in its statement appears to apply only to gas supplied to Ukraine by Gazprom in the second quarter of 2014 and still sets the price of gas supplied to Ukraine by Gazprom higher than was demanded by Ukraine during this period. ..."
"... Ukraine recently borrowed $3 billion on the international financial markets at very high interest almost certainly in order to pay the $3 billion the High Court in London has ordered it to pay Russia. Whilst the $2 billion is technically a debt owed by Naftogaz not Ukraine and its non-payment would does not place Ukraine in a state of sovereign default, Gazprom is in a position to enforce the debt against Naftogaz's assets (including gas it buys) in the European Economic Area. It is difficult to see how Naftogaz and Ukraine can avoid payment of this debt. ..."
"... Has Ukraine actually gained anything from its long running gas dispute with Russia? ..."
On Friday 21st December 2017 the Stockholm Arbitration Court made a ruling in the legal
dispute between Ukraine's state owned gas monopoly Naftogaz and Russia's largely state owned
gas monopoly Gazprom.
In the hours after the decision – which like all decisions of the Stockholm
Arbitration Court – is not published, Naftogaz claimed victory in a short statement.
However over the course of the hours which followed Gazprom provided details of the decision
which suggests that the truth is the diametric opposite.
Here is how the Financial Times reports
the competing claims
Both Ukraine's Naftogaz and Russia's Gazprom both on Friday claimed victory as a Stockholm
arbitration tribunal issued the final award ruling in the first of two cases in a three-year
legal battle between the state-controlled energy companies, where total claims stand at some
$80bn.
An emailed statement from the Ukrainian company was titled:
"Naftogaz wins the gas sales arbitration case against Gazprom on all issues in
dispute."
The Stockholm arbitration tribunal -- in its final award ruling in a dispute over gas
supplies from prior years -- had, according to Naftogaz, struck down Gazprom's claim to
receive $56bn for gas contracted but not supplied through controversial "take-or-pay"
clauses. They were included in a supply contract Ukraine signed in 2009 after Gazprom dented
supplies to the EU by cutting all flow amid a price dispute -- including transit through the
country's vast pipeline systems. In a tweet Ukraine's foreign minister
Pavlo Klimkin wrote: "The victory of Naftogaz in the Stockholm arbitration: It's not a
knockout, but three knockdowns with obvious advantage."
But later Gazprom countered that arbitors "acknowledged the main points of the contract
were in effect and upheld the majority of Gazprom's demands for payment for gas supplies",
worth over $2bn. A Naftogaz official responded that the company never refused to pay for gas
supplied, but challenged price and conditions.
Given the tribunal does not make its decisions public, doubt loomed over which side was
the ultimate winner. Anticipation also grew over the second and final tribunal award expected
early next year over disputes both have concerning past gas transit obligations.
Friday's final Stockholm arbitration ruling follows a preliminary decision from last May
after which both sides were given time to settle monetary claims outside of the tribunal but
failed to reach agreement.
Here is the full Naftogaz statement:
"Today, the Tribunal at the Arbitration Institute of the Stockholm Chamber of Commerce has
completely rejected Gazprom take-or-pay claims to Naftogaz amounting to USD 56 billion for
2009-2017.
– Naftogaz succeeded at reducing future contract volume obligations by more than 10
times and made them relevant to its actual import needs.
– Price for gas off-taken by Naftogaz in 2Q 2014 reduced 27% from USD 485/tcm to USD
352/tcm. – Naftogaz saved USD 1.8 billion on gas purchased in 2014-2015 due to revision
of the contract price.
– Destination clause and other discriminatory provisions were declared invalid to
bring the contract in line with current European market standards.
– Naftogaz estimates the total positive financial effect of the arbitration over the
lifetime of the supply contract at over USD 75 billion.
– Naftogaz claims up to USD 16 billion in transit contract arbitration against
Gazprom; decision expected on 28 February 2018."
Gazprom said that in a separate decision on May 31 of this year, the tribunal denied
Naftogaz's application to review prices from May 2011 to April 2014, ordered it to pay $14bn
for gas supplies during that period, and said that the take-or-pay conditions applied for the
duration of the contract. Gazprom claimed that Naftogaz would have to pay it $2.18bn plus
interest of 0.03 per cent for every day the payments were late, and then pay for 5bn cm of
gas annually starting next year.
When the different sides give opposite accounts of the same decision it obviously becomes
difficult to say what the real decision actually is. However Gazprom says that the court upheld
(1) the main provisions of the contract; (2) the contract's take-or-pay provisions, these being
a particularly contentious issue in the contract; and (3) that Naftogaz has been ordered to pay
Gazprom $2 billion, presumably immediately, with interest for every day the amount is
unpaid.
By contrast the reduction in the gas price Naftogaz refers to from $485/tcm to $352 tcm
which Naftogaz makes much of in its statement appears to apply only to gas supplied to Ukraine
by Gazprom in the second quarter of 2014 and still sets the price of gas supplied to Ukraine by
Gazprom higher than was demanded by Ukraine during this period.
The key point here is that Russia agreed to reduce the price of gas supplied to Ukraine by
an agreement Russia's President Putin reached with Ukraine's President Yanukovich in December
2013. After the Maidan coup the new Ukrainian government went back on the agreement causing the
Russians to demand payment of the original price. However over the course of 2014, as energy
prices began first to slide and then crashed, and as it became clear that Ukraine was simply
not paying for its gas, Russia again reduced the price of the gas Ukraine had to pay.
What seems to have happened is that the Stockholm Arbitration Court decided to smooth out
the price of gas payable by Ukraine throughout 2014, which is the sort of thing arbitration
tribunals are regularly known to do, whilst leaving the essentials of the contract
unchanged.
If so then this is not a victory by Ukraine but a clearcut defeat, which Naftogaz and the
Ukrainian government have tried to spin into a victory by citing the reduction in the gas price
in the second quarter of 2014 and the reduction in future gas import volumes, neither of which
were contentious issues. By contrast it is clear that Ukraine and Naftogaz must pay the full
contractual price and abide by the contract's take-or-pay provisions for the whole of the
period of the contract prior to the second quarter of 2014.
What this means in terms of hard cash is that Ukraine must now pay Russia a further $2
billion on top of the $3 billion it was recently ordered to pay by the High Court in London.
Just as it is holding back on paying the $3 billion it was ordered to pay by the High Court
until the appeal process in London is finished, so it will try to hold off paying the $2
billion it has just been ordered to pay to Gazprom until the final decision of the Stockholm
Arbitration Court (thus the brave talk of Naftogaz's claims of "up to $16 billion transit
contract arbitration against Gazprom") but thereafter payment of the $2 billion will fall due.
I say this because the claim Gazprom owes Naftogaz "up to" $16 billion in transit fees looks
like it has been plucked out of the air.
What this means is that over the course of 2018 Ukraine will have to pay Russia $5 billion
($3 billion awarded by the High Court in London and $2 billion awarded by the Stockholm
Arbitration Court). Since the $2 billion awarded by the Stockholm Arbitration Court is
technically an arbitration award, Gazprom will need to convert it into a court Judgment before
it can enforce it, but that is merely a formality. At that point this debt will become not
merely due but legally enforceable as well.
Ukraine recently borrowed $3 billion on the international financial markets at very high
interest almost certainly in order to pay the $3 billion the High Court in London has ordered
it to pay Russia. Whilst the $2 billion is technically a debt owed by Naftogaz not Ukraine and
its non-payment would does not place Ukraine in a state of sovereign default, Gazprom is in a
position to enforce the debt against Naftogaz's assets (including gas it buys) in the European
Economic Area. It is difficult to see how Naftogaz and Ukraine can avoid payment of this
debt.
Has Ukraine actually gained anything from its long running gas dispute with Russia?
Naftogaz brags that Ukraine has saved up to $75 billion because it is no longer buying gas
from Russia. However this begs the question of whether the gas Ukraine is now importing from
Europe really is significantly cheaper than the gas Ukraine was buying from Russia? This is
debatable and with energy prices rising it is likely to become even less likely over time.
Until now, apologists for the U.S.-Government side have been able to get away with various lies about these lies, such as that
there weren't any, and that Gorbachev didn't really think that the NATO issue was terribly important for Russia's future national
security anyway, and that the only limitation upon NATO's future expansion that was discussed during the negotiations to end the
Cold War concerned NATO not expanding itself eastward (i.e., closer to Russia) within Germany, not going beyond the then-existing
dividing-line between West and East Germany -- that no restriction against other east-bloc (Soviet-allied) nations ever being
admitted into NATO was discussed, at all. The now-standard U.S. excuse that the deal concerned only Germany and not all of Europe
is now conclusively disproven by the biggest single data-dump ever released about those negotiations.
This release on December 10th, by the National Security Archives, of a treasure-trove of all the existing documentation -- 33 key
documents -- that's been made available to them from numerous archives around the world, and brought together finally for the very
first time complete and in chronological order, makes crystal clear that the American apologists' lies about the lies WERE lies,
not accurate accounts of the history, at all.
The assemblers at the National Security Archives assume that the numerous and repeated false promises that were made by Bush's
team were mistakes, instead of as what they so clearly were (but you'll judge it here for yourself): strategic lies that were
essential to Bush's goal of America ultimately conquering a future isolated Russia that would then have little-to-no foreign
allies, and all of whose then-existing-as-Soviet allied nations within the Soviet Union itself, and beyond, including all of its
former Warsaw Pact allies, would have become ultimately swallowed up by the U.S.-NATO bloc, which then would be able to dictate,
to a finally alone nation of Russia, terms of Russia's ultimate surrender to the U.S. That view (which the National Security
Archives documents to be clearly true, even as it denies it and says that only Bill Clinton and subsequent Presidents were to
blame) is now exposed irrefutably to have been the U.S. plan ever since GHW Bush's Presidency.
In other words: This release of documents about the turning-point, provides capstone evidence that the U.S. never really had been
in the Cold War against communism; the U.S. was instead aiming ultimately to be the imperial nation, controlling the entire
planet. For America's Deep State, or what President Eisenhower famously warned about as the "military-industrial complex," the
Cold War was actually about empire, and about conquest, not really about ideology at all. This also had been shown, for example,
by America's having assisted so many 'former' Nazis to escape and come to America and to be paid now by the U.S. Government.
After World War II, the top level of the U.S. power-structure became increasingly taken over by the military-industrial complex,
America's Deep State, so that increasingly the U.S. Government is in a condition of "perpetual war for perpetual peace" -- a
warfare state and economy: fascism.
Here, then, are highlights from this historic data-dump, presented in chronological order, just as in the release itself, and
with a minimum of added commentary from myself [placed in brackets], but all stripping away here the dross of accompanying
inconsequentials, and leaving only the golden steady core of stunningly successful American deceit of Russia. These are those
highlights, from the December 10th data-dump, which the National Security Archives headlined "
NATO
Expansion: What Gorbachev Heard
" and sub-headed "Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to
Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner," so that the swindlers
(or as the National Security Archive view them as having instead been blunderers) can become immediately recognized and known.
All of these documents pertain to negotiations that occurred throughout the month of February 1990, and a few relate also to the
immediate aftermath. That's the crucial period, when the geostrategic reality of today (which all the world now know to be a
continuation of the Cold War, but this time against only Russia, and not against the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact) was
actually created.
At the negotiations' start, West Germany's Chancellor Helmut Kohl's agent, Germany's Foreign Minister, Hans-Dietrich Genscher,
stated publicly to the whole world, West Germany's initial offer to the Soviet Union's President Mikhail Gorbachev, and this
offer did not include a simultaneous termination of both military alliances -- the Soviets' Warsaw Pact and America's NATO -- but
instead only a promise that NATO would never absorb any additional territory, especially to the east of West Germany (and this
publicly made promise was never kept). So: right from the get-go, there was no actual termination of the Cold War that was being
proposed by the U.S. group, but only an arrangement that wouldn't threaten Russia more than the then-existing split Germany did
(and yet even that promise turned out to have been a lie):
Document 01
U.S. Embassy Bonn Confidential Cable to Secretary of State on the speech of the German Foreign Minister: Genscher Outlines His
Vision of a New European Architecture.
1990-02-01
Source: U.S. Department of State. FOIA Reading Room. Case F-2015 10829
"This U.S. Embassy Bonn cable reporting back to Washington details both of Hans-Dietrich Genscher's proposals – that NATO would
not expand to the east, and that the former territory of the GDR in a unified Germany would be treated differently from other
NATO territory."
Document 02
Mr. Hurd to Sir C. Mallaby (Bonn). Telegraphic N. 85: Secretary of State's Call on Herr Genscher: German Unification.
1990-02-06
Source: Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990.
"The U.S. State Department's subsequent view of the German unification negotiations, expressed in a 1996 cable sent to all posts,
mistakenly asserts that the entire negotiation over the future of Germany limited its discussion of the future of NATO to the
specific arrangements over the territory of the former GDR." [The National Security Archives' calling that Bill-Clinton-era State
Department cable 'mistaken' is unsupported by, and even contradicted by, the evidence they actually present from the February
1990 negotiations.]
Document 03
Memorandum from Paul H. Nitze to George H.W. Bush about "Forum for Germany" meeting in Berlin.
1990-02-06
Source: George H. W. Bush Presidential Library
"This concise note to President Bush from one of the Cold War's architects, Paul Nitze (based at his namesake Johns Hopkins
University School of International Studies), captures the debate over the future of NATO in early 1990. Nitze relates that
Central and Eastern European leaders attending the 'Forum for Germany' conference in Berlin were advocating the dissolution of
both the superpower blocs, NATO and the Warsaw Pact, until he (and a few western Europeans) turned around that view and instead
emphasized the importance of NATO as the basis of stability and U.S. presence in Europe."
Document 04
Memorandum of Conversation between James Baker and Eduard Shevardnadze in Moscow.
1990-02-09
Source: U.S. Department of State, FOIA 199504567 (National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38)
"Baker tells the Soviet foreign minister, 'A neutral Germany would undoubtedly acquire its own independent nuclear capability.
However, a Germany that is firmly anchored in a changed NATO, by that I mean a NATO that is far less of [a] military
organization, much more of a political one, would have no need for independent capability. There would, of course, have to be
iron-clad guarantees that NATO's jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward.'"
Document 05
Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow.
1990-02-09
Source: U.S. Department of State, FOIA 199504567 (National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38)
"Even with (unjustified) redactions by U.S. classification officers, this American transcript of perhaps the most famous U.S.
assurance to the Soviets on NATO expansion confirms the Soviet transcript of the same conversation. Repeating what Bush said at
the Malta summit in December 1989, Baker tells Gorbachev: 'The President and I have made clear that we seek no unilateral
advantage in this process' of inevitable German unification. Baker goes on to say, 'We understand the need for assurances to the
countries in the East. If we maintain a presence in a Germany that is a part of NATO, there would be no extension of NATO's
jurisdiction for forces of NATO one inch to the east.'"
Document 06
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow. (Excerpts)
1990-02-09
Source: Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Fond 1, Opis 1.
"The key exchange takes place when Baker asks whether Gorbachev would prefer 'a united Germany outside of NATO, absolutely
independent and without American troops; or a united Germany keeping its connections with NATO, but with the guarantee that
NATO's jurisdiction or troops will not spread east of the present boundary.' Turning to German unification, Baker assures
Gorbachev that 'neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking
place,' and that the Americans understand the importance for the USSR and Europe of guarantees that 'not an inch of NATO's
present military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction.'"
Document 07
Memorandum of conversation between Robert Gates and Vladimir Kryuchkov in Moscow.
1990-02-09
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, Box 91128, Folder "Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive."
"This conversation is especially important because subsequent researchers have speculated that Secretary Baker may have been
speaking beyond his brief in his 'not one inch eastward' conversation with Gorbachev. Robert Gates, the former top CIA
intelligence analyst and a specialist on the USSR, here tells his kind-of-counterpart, the head of the KGB, in his office at the
Lubyanka KGB headquarters, exactly what Baker told Gorbachev that day at the Kremlin: not one inch eastward. At that point, Gates
was the top deputy to the president's national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, so this document speaks to a coordinated
approach by the U.S. government to Gorbachev."
Document 08
Letter from James Baker to Helmut Kohl
1990-02-10
Source: Deutsche Enheit Sonderedition und den Akten des Budeskanzleramtes 1989/90
"Baker especially remarks on Gorbachev's noncommittal response to the question about a neutral Germany versus a NATO Germany with
pledges against eastward expansion."
Document 09
Memorandum of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Helmut Kohl
1990-02-10
Source: Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006)
"Prepared by Baker's letter and his own foreign minister's Tutzing formula, Kohl early in the conversation assures Gorbachev, 'We
believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity. We have to find a reasonable resolution. I correctly understand
the security interests of the Soviet Union, and I realize that you, Mr. General Secretary, and the Soviet leadership will have to
clearly explain what is happening to the Soviet people.' Later the two leaders tussle about NATO and the Warsaw Pact, with
Gorbachev commenting, 'They say what is NATO without the FRG. But we could also ask: What is the WTO without the GDR?' When Kohl
disagrees, Gorbachev calls merely for 'reasonable solutions that do not poison the atmosphere in our relations' and says this
part of the conversation should not be made public."
Document 10-1
Teimuraz Stepanov-Mamaladze notes from Conference on Open Skies, Ottawa, Canada.
1990-02-12
Source: Hoover Institution Archive, Stepanov-Mamaladze Collection.
"Notes from the first days of the conference are very brief, but they contain one important line that shows that Baker offered
the same assurance formula in Ottawa as he did in Moscow: 'And if U[nited] G[ermany] stays in NATO, we should take care about
nonexpansion of its jurisdiction to the East.'"
"This diary entry is evidence, from a critical perspective, that the United States and West Germany did give Moscow concrete
assurances about keeping NATO to its current size and scope. In fact, the diary further indicates that at least in Shevardnadze's
view those assurances amounted to a deal – which Gorbachev accepted."
"Stepanov-Mamaladze describes difficult negotiations about the exact wording on the joint statement. 'During the day, active
games were taking place between all of them. E.A. [Shevardnadze] met with Baker five times, twice with Genscher, talked with
Fischer [GDR foreign minister], Dumas [French foreign minister], and the ministers of the ATS countries,' and finally, the text
of the settlement was settled."
Document 11
U.S. State Department, "Two Plus Four: Advantages, Possible Concerns and Rebuttal Points."
1990-02-21
Source: State Department FOIA release, National Security Archive Flashpoints Collection, Box 38.
"The American fear was that the West Germans would make their own deal with Moscow for rapid unification, giving up some of the
bottom lines for the U.S., mainly membership in NATO."
Document 12-1
Memorandum of conversation between Vaclav Havel and George Bush in Washington.
1990-02-20
Source:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (
https://bush41library.tamu.edu/
)
"Bush took the opportunity to lecture the Czech leader about the value of NATO and its essential role as the basis for the U.S.
presence in Europe."
Document 12-2
Memorandum of conversation between Vaclav Havel and George Bush in Washington.
1990-02-21
Source:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (
https://bush41library.tamu.edu/
)
"Bush's request to Havel to pass the message to Gorbachev that the Americans support him personally, and that 'We will not
conduct ourselves in the wrong way by saying "we win, you lose." Emphasizing the point, Bush says, 'tell Gorbachev that I asked
you to tell Gorbachev that we will not conduct ourselves regarding Czechoslovakia or any other country in a way that would
complicate the problems he has so frankly discussed with me.' The Czechoslovak leader adds his own caution to the Americans about
how to proceed with the unification of Germany and address Soviet insecurities. Havel remarks to Bush, 'It is a question of
prestige.'"
[I think that Havel was deceived to believe that "prestige" was the issue here. This is what the U.S. team wanted the Soviet team
to think was the U.S. team's chief motivation for wanting NATO to continue. But subsequent historical events, especially the U.S.
team's proceeding under President Bill Clinton and up through Donald Trump to expand NATO to include, by now, virtually all of
the Warsaw Pact and of the Soviet Union itself except for Russia, in NATO, proves that U.S. aggression against Russia has been
the U.S. aim from the start, and the U.S. Government has been working assiduously at this plan for ultimate conquest. I think
that Havel's use there of the word "prestige" was very revealing of the total snookering of Gorbachev that Bush achieved.
Gorbachev and his team trusted the U.S. side. Russia has paid dearly for that. If the U.S. side continues and NATO isn't
voluntarily terminated by the U.S. Government, then WW III will be the inevitable result. NATO will end either after the
'conquest' of Russia or before that WW-III 'conquest' (likelier to be actually destruction of the entire world) even happens. The
world, today, will decide which. NATO should have ended in 1991, when the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact did.]
Document 13
Memorandum of Conversation between Helmut Kohl and George Bush at Camp David.
1990-02-24
Source:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (
https://bush41library.tamu.edu
/)
"The Bush administration's main worry about German unification as the process accelerated in February 1990 was that the West
Germans might make their own deal bilaterally with the Soviets (see Document 11) and might be willing to bargain away NATO
membership. The German chancellor arrives at Camp David without [West German Foreign Minister] Genscher because the latter does
not entirely share the Bush-Kohl position on full German membership in NATO, and he recently angered both leaders by speaking
publicly about the CSCE as the future European security mechanism.[11] Bush's priority is to keep the U.S. presence, especially
the nuclear umbrella, in Europe: 'if U.S. nuclear forces are withdrawn from Germany, I don't see how we can persuade any other
ally on the continent to retain these weapons.' [Bush wanted Lockheed and other U.S. weapons-makers to continue booming after
the Cold War 'ended' -- not for the nuclear-weapons market to end. Bush continued:] 'We have weird thinking in our Congress today,
ideas like this peace dividend. We can't do that in these uncertain times.' [For the U.S. team, 'perpetual war for perpetual
peace' would be the way forward; a 'peace dividend' was the last thing they wanted -- ever.] At one point in the conversation,
Bush seems to view his Soviet counterpart not as a partner but as a defeated enemy. Referring to talk in some Soviet quarters
against Germany staying in NATO, he says: 'To hell with that. We prevailed and they didn't. We cannot let the Soviets clutch
victory from the jaws of defeat.'" [I earlier had placed that crucial secret statement from Bush into historical perspective,
under the headline, "
How
America Double-Crossed Russia and Shamed the West
".]
Document 14
Memorandum of conversation between George Bush and Eduard Shevardnadze in Washington.
1990-04-06
Source:
George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons (
https://bush41library.tamu.edu/
)
"Shevardnadze mentions the upcoming CSCE summit and the Soviet expectation that it will discuss the new European security
structures. Bush does not contradict this but ties it to the issues of the U.S. presence in Europe and German unification in
NATO. He declares that he wants to 'contribute to stability and to the creation of a Europe whole and free, or as you call it, a
common European home. A[n] idea that is very close to our own.' The Soviets -- wrongly -- interpret this as a declaration that the
U.S. administration shares Gorbachev's idea."
Document 15
Sir R. Braithwaite (Moscow). Telegraphic N. 667: "Secretary of State's Meeting with President Gorbachev."
1990-04-11
Source: Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth
Office.
"Ambassador Braithwaite's telegram summarizes the meeting between Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Douglas
Hurd and President Gorbachev, noting Gorbachev's 'expansive mood.' Gorbachev asks the secretary to pass his appreciation for
Margaret Thatcher's letter to him after her summit with Kohl, at which, according to Gorbachev, she followed the lines of policy
Gorbachev and Thatcher discussed in their recent phone call, on the basis of which the Soviet leader concluded that 'the British
and Soviet positions were very close indeed.'"
Document 16
Valentin Falin Memorandum to Mikhail Gorbachev (Excerpts)
1990-04-18
Source: Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros, edited by Alexander Galkin and Anatoly Chernyaev, (Moscow: Ves Mir, 2006)
"This memorandum from the Central Committee's most senior expert on Germany sounds like a wake-up call for Gorbachev. Falin puts
it in blunt terms: while Soviet European policy has fallen into inactivity and even 'depression after the March 18 elections in
East Germany, and Gorbachev himself has let Kohl speed up the process of unification, his compromises on Germany in NATO can only
lead to the slipping away of his main goal for Europe – the common European home. 'Summing up the past six months, one has to
conclude that the "common European home," which used to be a concrete task the countries of the continent were starting to
implement, is now turning into a mirage.' While the West is sweet-talking Gorbachev into accepting German unification in NATO,
Falin notes (correctly) that 'the Western states are already violating the consensus principle by making preliminary agreements
among themselves' regarding German unification and the future of Europe that do not include a 'long phase of constructive
development.' He notes the West's 'intensive cultivation of not only NATO but also our Warsaw Pact allies' with the goal to
isolate the USSR. He also suggests using arms control negotiations in Vienna and Geneva as leverage if the West keeps taking
advantage of Soviet flexibility. The main idea of the memo is to warn Gorbachev not to be naive about the intentions of his
American partners: 'The West is outplaying us, promising to respect the interests of the USSR, but in practice, step by step,
separating us from "traditional Europe".'"
Document 17
James A. Baker III, Memorandum for the President, "My meeting with Shevardnadze."
1990-05-04
Source: George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files, Box 91126, Folder "Gorbachev (Dobrynin) Sensitive 1989 –
June 1990 [3]"
"Baker reports, 'I also used your speech and our recognition of the need to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to
develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners and losers. Instead, it would produce a new
legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive.'"
Document 18
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and James Baker in Moscow.
1990-05-18
Source: Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Fond 1
"When Gorbachev mentions the need to build new security structures to replace the blocs, Baker lets slip a personal reaction that
reveals much about the real U.S. position on the subject: 'It's nice to talk about pan-European security structures, the role of
the CSCE. It is a wonderful dream, but just a dream. In the meantime, NATO exists. ' Gorbachev suggests that if the U.S. side
insists on Germany in NATO, then he would 'announce publicly that we want to join NATO too.' Shevardnadze goes further, offering
a prophetic observation: 'if united Germany becomes a member of NATO, it will blow up perestroika. Our people will not forgive
us. People will say that we ended up the losers, not the winners.'"
Document 19
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Francois Mitterrand (excerpts).
1990-05-25
Source: Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros
"[Miterrand] implies that NATO is not the key issue now and could be drowned out in further negotiations; rather, the important
thing is to ensure Soviet participation in new European security system. He repeats that he is 'personally in favor of gradually
dismantling the military blocs.' Gorbachev expresses his wariness and suspicion about U.S. effort to 'perpetuate NATO'." [This
was extraordinary documentation that the U.S. team had deceived Gorbachev to think that they were trying to suggest to him that
both military alliances -- NATO and Warsaw Pact -- would be ended, but that Gorbachev was "wary" and "suspicious" that maybe they
didn't really mean it. Stunning.]
Document 20
Letter from Francois Mitterrand to George Bush
1990-05-25
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Scowcroft Files
True to his word, Mitterrand writes a letter to George Bush describing Gorbachev's predicament on the issue of German unification
in NATO, calling it genuine, not 'fake or tactical.' He warns the American president against doing it as a fait accompli without
Gorbachev's consent implying that Gorbachev might retaliate on arms control (exactly what Mitterrand himself – and Falin earlier
– suggested in his conversation). Mitterrand argues in favor of a formal 'peace settlement in International law,' and informs
Bush that in his conversation with Gorbachev he "'indicated that, on the Western side, we would certainly not refuse to detail
the guarantees that he would have a right to expect for his country's security.'"
Document 21
Record of conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush. White House, Washington D.C.
1990-05-31
Source: Gorbachev Foundation Archive, Moscow, Fond 1, opis 1.[12]
"Baker repeats the nine assurances made previously by the administration, including that the United States now agrees to support
the pan-European process and transformation of NATO in order to remove the Soviet perception of threat. Gorbachev's preferred
position is Germany with one foot in both NATO and the Warsaw Pact -- the 'two anchors' -- creating a kind of associated
membership. Baker intervenes, saying that 'the simultaneous obligations of one and the same country toward the WTO and NATO smack
of schizophrenia.' After the U.S. president frames the issue in the context of the Helsinki agreement, Gorbachev proposes that
the German people have the right to choose their alliance -- which he in essence already affirmed to Kohl during their meeting in
February 1990. Here, Gorbachev significantly exceeds his brief, and incurs the ire of other members of his delegation, especially
the official with the German portfolio, Valentin Falin, and Marshal Sergey Akhromeyev. Gorbachev issues a key warning about the
future: 'If the Soviet people get an impression that we are disregarded in the German question, then all the positive processes
in Europe, including the negotiations in Vienna [over conventional forces], would be in serious danger. This is not just
bluffing. It is simply that the people will force us to stop and to look around.' It is a remarkable admission about domestic
political pressures from the last Soviet leader."
Document 22
Letter from Mr. Powell (N. 10) to Mr. Wall: Thatcher-Gorbachev memorandum of conversation.
1990-06-08
Source: Documents on British Policy Overseas, series III, volume VII: German Unification, 1989-1990. (Foreign and Commonwealth
Office
"Gorbachev says he wants to 'be completely frank with the Prime Minister' that if the processes were to become one-sided, 'there
could be a very difficult situation [and the] Soviet Union would feel its security in jeopardy.' Thatcher responds firmly that it
was in nobody's interest to put Soviet security in jeopardy: 'we must find ways to give the Soviet Union confidence that its
security would be assured.'"
Document 23
Record of Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and Helmut Kohl, Moscow (Excerpts).
1990-07-15
Source: Mikhail Gorbachev i germanskii vopros
"This key conversation between Chancellor Kohl and President Gorbachev sets the final parameters for German unification. Kohl
talks repeatedly about the new era of relations between a united Germany and the Soviet Union, and how this relationship would
contribute to European stability and security. Gorbachev demands assurances on non-expansion of NATO: 'We must talk about the
nonproliferation of NATO military structures to the territory of the GDR, and maintaining Soviet troops there for a certain
transition period.' The Soviet leader notes earlier in the conversation that NATO has already begun transforming itself. For him,
the pledge of NATO non-expansion to the territory of the GDR in spirit means that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet
willingness to compromise on Germany."
[Of course, Gorbachev never knew that Bush had instructed his agents, on the night of 24 February 1990, "To hell with that. We
prevailed and they didn't. We cannot let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat," indicating that for the U.S.
aristocracy, conquest of an isolated Russia was the actual ultimate aim -- there would be no actual end of the Cold War until the
U.S. would conquer Russia itself -- grab the whole thing. Gorbachev was, it is now absolutely undeniable, conned.]
Document 24
Memorandum of Telephone Conversation between Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush
1990-07-17
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, Memcons and Telcons ((
https://bush41library.tamu.edu/
)
"In this phone call, Bush expands on Kohl's security assurances and reinforces the message from the London Declaration: 'So what
we tried to do was to take account of your concerns expressed to me and others, and we did it in the following ways: by our joint
declaration on non-aggression; in our invitation to you to come to NATO; in our agreement to open NATO to regular diplomatic
contact with your government and those of the Eastern European countries; and our offer on assurances on the future size of the
armed forces of a united Germany – an issue I know you discussed with Helmut Kohl. We also fundamentally changed our military
approach on conventional and nuclear forces. We conveyed the idea of an expanded, stronger CSCE with new institutions in which
the USSR can share and be part of the new Europe.'"
Document 25
September 12 Two-Plus-Four Ministerial in Moscow: Detailed account [includes text of the Treaty on the Final Settlement with
Respect to Germany and Agreed Minute to the Treaty on the special military status of the GDR after unification]
1990-11-02
Source: George H.W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Condoleezza Rice Files
"the agreed text of the final treaty on German unification. The treaty codified what Bush had earlier offered to Gorbachev –
'special military status' for the former GDR territory. At the last minute, British and American concerns that the language would
restrict emergency NATO troop movements there forced the inclusion of a 'minute' that left it up to the newly unified and
sovereign Germany what the meaning of the word 'deployed' should be. Kohl had committed to Gorbachev that only German NATO troops
would be allowed on that territory after the Soviets left, and Germany stuck to that commitment, even though the 'minute' was
meant to allow other NATO troops to traverse or exercise there at least temporarily. Subsequently, Gorbachev aides such as Pavel
Palazhshenko would point to the treaty language to argue that NATO expansion violated the 'spirit' of this Final Settlement
treaty."
[Obviously, now, it was no "Final Settlement" at all.]
Document 26
U.S. Department of State, European Bureau: Revised NATO Strategy Paper for Discussion at Sub-Ungroup Meeting
1990-10-22
Source: George H. W. Bush Presidential Library, NSC Heather Wilson Files,
"Joint Chiefs and other agencies, posits that '[a] potential Soviet threat remains and constitutes one basic justification for
the continuance of NATO.' At the same time, in the discussion of potential East European membership in NATO, the review suggests
that 'In the current environment, it is not in the best interest of NATO or of the U.S. that these states be granted full NATO
membership and its security guarantees.' The United States does not 'wish to organize an anti-Soviet coalition whose frontier is
the Soviet border' – not least because of the negative impact this might have on reforms in the USSR. NATO liaison offices would
do for the present time, the group concluded, but the relationship will develop in the future. In the absence of the Cold War
confrontation, NATO 'out of area' functions will have to be redefined." [Clearly, they wanted the revolving door to land them in
high-paid positions supported by U.S. weapons-making corporations, not just in retirements with only military pensions. Or else,
they just loved war and, like Bush, didn't want there to be any "peace dividend."]
Document 27
James F. Dobbins, State Department European Bureau, Memorandum to National Security Council: NATO Strategy Review Paper for
October 29 Discussion.
1990-10-25
Source: George H. W. Bush Presidential Library: NSC Philip Zelikow Files
"This concise memorandum comes from the State Department's European Bureau as a cover note for briefing papers for a scheduled
October 29, 1990 meeting on the issues of NATO expansion and European defense cooperation with NATO. Most important is the
document's summary of the internal debate within the Bush administration, primarily between the Defense Department (specifically
the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney) and the State Department. On the issue of NATO expansion, OSD 'wishes to
leave the door ajar' while State 'prefers simply to note that discussion of expanding membership is not on the agenda .' The Bush
administration effectively adopts State's view in its public statements, yet the Defense view would prevail in the next
administration."
[This allegation, by the National Security Archives, fundamentally misrepresents, by its underlying assumption that the Bush
Administration's statements such as that NATO would move "not one inch to the east" weren't lies but instead reflected Bush's
actual intention. They ignore altogether Bush's having secretly told his vassals on the crucial night of 24 February 1990, "To
hell with that. We prevailed and they didn't. We cannot let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat." Gorbachev
believed that this was to be a win-win game; but, the U.S. side were now under secret instructions that it's to be purely more of
the win-lose game, and that now a lone Russia would end up being its ultimate loser. The despicable statement by the National
Security Archives, "yet the Defense view would prevail in the next administration," presumes that it didn't actually already
'prevail' in the Bush Administration itself. It prevailed actually in George Herbert Walker Bush himself, and not only in his
Defense Department. Bush brilliantly took advantage of Gorbachev's decency and expectation that Bush, like himself, was decent.
Bush lied -- and his team and their successors ever since have been carrying out his vicious plan. The National Security Archives
downplays to insignificance Bush's crucial instruction to his people, "To hell with that. We prevailed and they didn't. We cannot
let the Soviets clutch victory from the jaws of defeat." That statement, at that crucial moment, is what enables us to understand
what was actually going on throughout these negotiations. The Archives' blaming only Bill Clinton and the other Presidents after
Bush is a despicable lie. And it wasn't just "the Defense view" -- Cheney -- who prevailed within the Bush Administration there.
Cheney, like Baker, were doing what GHW Bush had hired them to do. Baker's job was to lie. If it weren't, then he'd have told
Gorbachev the next day not to trust what the Bush team were saying, but instead to demand everything to be put in writing in the
final document, and to assume the worst regarding anything that the Bush team were refusing to put in writing in the final
document. Baker was a lawyer, and a very skilled liar, who was just doing his job for Bush. For some inexplicable reason, the
National Security Archives simply assumes otherwise.]
Document 28
Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite diary, 05 March 1991
1991-03-05
Source: Rodric Braithwaite personal diary
"British Ambassador Rodric Braithwaite was present for a number of the assurances given to Soviet leaders in 1990 and 1991 about
NATO expansion. Here, Braithwaite in his diary describes a meeting between British Prime Minister John Major and Soviet military
officials, led by Minister of Defense Marshal Dmitry Yazov. The meeting took place during Major's visit to Moscow and right after
his one-on-one with President Gorbachev. During the meeting with Major, Gorbachev had raised his concerns about the new NATO
dynamics: 'Against the background of favorable processes in Europe, I suddenly start receiving information that certain circles
intend to go on further strengthening NATO as the main security instrument in Europe. Previously they talked about changing the
nature of NATO, about transformation of the existing military-political blocs into pan-European structures and security
mechanisms. And now suddenly again [they are talking about] a special peace-keeping role of NATO. They are talking again about
NATO as the cornerstone. This does not sound complementary to the common European home that we have started to build.' Major
responded: 'I believe that your thoughts about the role of NATO in the current situation are the result of misunderstanding. We
are not talking about strengthening of NATO.'"
Document 29
Paul Wolfowitz Memoranda of Conversation with Vaclav Havel and Lubos Dobrovsky in Prague.
1991-04-27
Source: U.S. Department of Defense, FOIA release 2016
"These memcons from April 1991 provide the bookends for the 'education of Vaclav Havel' on NATO (see Documents 12-1 and 12-2
above). U.S. Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Paul Wolfowitz included these memcons in his report to the NSC and the State
Department about his attendance at a conference in Prague on 'The Future of European Security,' on April 24-27, 1991. During the
conference Wolfowitz had separate meetings with Havel and Minister of Defense Dobrovsky. In the conversation with Havel,
Wolfowitz thanks him for his statements about the importance of NATO and US troops in Europe. In conversation with Dobrovsky,
Wolfowitz remarks that 'the very existence of NATO was in doubt a year ago.'"
Document 30
Memorandum to Boris Yeltsin from Russian Supreme Soviet delegation to NATO HQs
1991-07-01
Source: State Archive of the Russian Federation (GARF), Fond 10026, Opis 1
"This document is important for describing the clear message in 1991 from the highest levels of NATO – Secretary General Manfred
Woerner – that NATO expansion was not happening
. The audience was a Russian Supreme Soviet delegation, which in this
memo was reporting back to Boris Yeltsin (who in June had been elected president of the Russian republic, largest in the Soviet
Union), but no doubt Gorbachev and his aides were hearing the same assurance at that time. The emerging Russian security
establishment was already worried about the possibility of NATO expansion, so in June 1991 this delegation visited Brussels to
meet NATO's leadership, hear their views about the future of NATO, and share Russian concerns.
Woerner had given a well-regarded speech in Brussels in May 1990 in which he argued: 'The principal task of the next decade will
be to build a new European security structure, to include the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact nations. The Soviet Union will
have an important role to play in the construction of such a system. If you consider the current predicament of the Soviet Union,
which has practically no allies left, then you can understand its justified wish not to be forced out of Europe.' Now in
mid-1991, Woerner responds to the Russians by stating that he personally and the NATO Council are both against expansion -- '13
out of 16 NATO members share this point of view' -- and that he will speak against Poland's and Romania's membership in NATO to
those countries' leaders as he has already done with leaders of Hungary and Czechoslovakia."
The vote came after a redoubling of threats by Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, who
said that Washington would remember which countries "disrespected" America by voting against
it.
Despite the warning, 128 members voted on Thursday in favour of the resolution supporting
the longstanding international consensus that the status of Jerusalem – which is claimed
as a capital by both Israel and the Palestinians – can only be
settled as an agreed final issue in a peace deal. Countries which voted for the resolution
included major recipients of US aid such as Egypt, Afghanistan and Iraq.
But only nine states – including the United States and Israel –voted against the
resolution. The other countries which supported Washington were Togo, Micronesia, Nauru, Palau,
Marshall Islands, Guatemala and Honduras.
'The United States will remember this day, in which it was singled out for attack in the
General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right as a sovereign nation'
To its shame, the United Nations has long been a hostile place for the state of Israel. Both
the current and the previous Secretary-Generals have objected to the UN's disproportionate
focus on Israel. It's a wrong that undermines the credibility of this institution, and that in
turn is harmful for the entire world.
I've often wondered why, in the face of such hostility, Israel has chosen to remain a member
of this body. And then I remember that Israel has chosen to remain in this institution because
it's important to stand up for yourself. Israel must stand up for its own survival as a nation;
but it also stands up for the ideals of freedom and human dignity that the United Nations is
supposed to be about.
Standing here today, being forced to defend sovereignty and the integrity of my country
– the United States of America – many of the same thoughts have come to mind. The
United States is by far the single largest contributor to the United Nations and its agencies.
We do this, in part, in order to advance our values and our interests. When that happens, our
participation in the UN produces great good for the world. Together we feed, clothe, and
educate desperate people. We nurture and sustain fragile peace in conflict areas throughout the
world. And we hold outlaw regimes accountable. We do this because it represents who we are. It
is our American way.
But we'll be honest with you. When we make generous contributions to the UN, we also have a
legitimate expectation that our good will is recognized and respected. When a nation is singled
out for attack in this organization, that nation is disrespected. What's more, that nation is
asked to pay for the "privilege" of being disrespected.
In the case of the United States, we are asked to pay more than anyone else for that dubious
privilege. Unlike in some UN member countries, the United States government is answerable to
its people. As such, we have an obligation to acknowledge when our political and financial
capital is being poorly spent.
We have an obligation to demand more for our investment. And if our investment fails, we
have an obligation to spend our resources in more productive ways. Those are the thoughts that
come to mind when we consider the resolution before us today.
The arguments about the President's decision to move the American embassy to Jerusalem have
already been made. They are by now well known. The decision was in accordance to U.S. law
dating back to 1995, and it's position has been repeatedly endorsed by the American people ever
since. The decision does not prejudge any final status issues, including Jerusalem's
boundaries. The decision does not preclude a two-state solution, if the parties agree to that.
The decision does nothing to harm peace efforts. Rather, the President's decision reflects the
will of the American people and our right as a nation to choose the location of our embassy.
There is no need to describe it further.
Instead, there is a larger point to make. The United States will remember this day in which
it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our right
as a sovereign nation. We will remember it when we are called upon to once again make the
world's largest contribution to the United Nations. And we will remember it when so many
countries come calling on us, as they so often do, to pay even more and to use our influence
for their benefit.
America will put our embassy in Jerusalem. That is what the American people want us to do,
and it is the right thing to do. No vote in the United Nations will make any difference on
that.
But this vote will make a difference on how Americans look at the UN and on how we look at
countries who disrespect us in the UN. And this vote will be remembered.
Dump Trump, Nikki for President. If we are going to have a bullshi**er for President we might
as well have the best. THe crap she spouted makes Trump sound like a novice.
"Instead, there is a larger point to make. The United States will remember this day in which
it was singled out for attack in the General Assembly for the very act of exercising our
right as a sovereign nation."
I have lost count of how many times the US has destroyed countries, for exercising THEIR
rights as a sovereign nation. Often deceitfully and cynically using the UN as it's
instrument.
The hypocrisy is stunning. Fortunately it seems the rest of the world is coming to realize
that the US is unhinged and that trying to deal rationally with a lunatic is pointless. Watch
China and Russia make great gains globally as former US allies turn away.
I suppose that any Congressional action could be said to be a reflection of "the will" of the
American people since they are elected representatives, but, in reality, how many Americans
were even aware of the 1995 Jerusalem embassy law? How can it be said that such law has been
repeatedly "endorsed" by the American people, presumably by continuing to send people to
Congress or by the re-signing of 6-month waivers to delay sending the embassy to Jerusalem,
which has happened twice a year for over twenty years with absolutely zero discussion or
publicity?
Haley claims to speak for the American people but she is truly speaking for the grossly
powerful Israel lobby which has literally purchased its significant place at the table.
Everyone knows this, so her self-righteous remarks produce scorn and disgust.
"Israel... stands up for the ideals of freedom and human dignity... "
Haley must be talking about a different Israel from the one in the middle east.
As for the United Nations, it's about time the organisation stands up against the tyrants and
starts doing what it was created for, support global cooperation and international laws.
Apply it's rules equally: not just sanction developing countries for saying no to
exploitation by the rich ot for building their own national defense because rich and powerful
countries use aggression to get what they want.
If the United Nations were a just organisation Palestine would have become a sovereign nation
decades ago, global terrorism would not exist and no nation would develop nuclear
weapons.
But, as always, money is the driver and the US/Israel blackmailing may just succeed.
Hey Nikki - most of the world, and many of us here in the U.S. are sick and tired of the
nation's work on behalf of some mythical "values" and those ever-present "interests." We know
who you serve, and it sure as hell ain't the people of any nation. Haley is prepping for a
run at the Senate, and is setting herself up quite nicely for those big checks from Adelson.
When we pay our dues to the UN we expect to be obeyed. "We have an obligation to demand more
for our investment" - thus shrieked the incomparable Nikki Haley. If she had read Lewis
Carrol (which I doubt) she might have shortened her speech by saying "Off with their heads".
If the US thinks it can buy out the world, it is getting truly delusional. BTW, are these
128 countries now going to be sanctioned? And what after that if the world still disobeys the
mighty US?
Watch out for a blast of twitters from the USA's Twitterer-in-Chief. He will drown these 128
countries in venom and fry their Twitter accounts. The lady representing the US at the UN has
carefully prepared a list of these countries - watch out all you 128 countries. Trump and the
lady will go hopping mad - maybe we may get to see that routine - and then just you wait, you
128 countries, for the barrage of twitters that will be let loose upon you. Some day, the US
rep at the UN may even assault the reps of other countries and spit and cuss at them. Now
that would be a show worth watching!
Well that's it but don't blame Trump.
UN member states have come to the conclusion that it's now safe to rebut the United States
.
Trump in his clumsiness has only highlighted what the UN has been and that it is a corrupt
sovereign nation bribing nation states with American aid for their votes.
Reagan did it Clinton did it Bush did it Bush Senior did it and now Trump has done it.
This is Americas international policy wake up call.
Member States do not trust America any more and they could not have expressed their views any
stronger.
The British must take some blame too for riding the Tigers back for the past seventy
years.
Only psychophantics will follow these nations now.
That goes for North Korea too.
Will the UN decide now not to attack North Korea and level it to the ground with horrific
casualties for the second time.
The world has tired of Americas impudence of terror.
They should pull out of their military bases now around the world .
The countries that host them have had enough of their paranoid exceptionalism.
It's time to change direction and to defy US fiat money bribes.
Bizarre, surreal, unbelievable, jaw-dropping, astounding, mind-boggling, incomprehensible?
... Watching Ms. Haley - on behalf of Mr. Trump, Mr. Netanyahu and their bosses - continue
digging in an already deep hole of isolation leads one to ponder if the human language even
provides words sufficient for accurately describing what is occurring.
Jack
Marshall Islands - pop 53,000. In free association with USA Inc.
Nuclear test site. Most bombed country on the planet. Nuked 67 times.
Uses USD for currency.
Bikini Atoll fame. First hydrogen bomb test.
Survives on payments from uncle Sam for genocide of an island population.
Destitute and radiated with Amerikkkan values, happy Hanukka Marshall Islands
After reading the comments on this page I just can't figure out why the American voter is
always voting for the one corporate party dictatorship. Sorry to say I don't see much
difference in republicans and democrats, when it comes to wars, and Israel.
There is a reason much of the world hates Israel.......and now also they hate the US.
Dennis Morrisseau
USArmy Officer [Vietnam era] ANTI-WAR
LIBERTY UNION founder
Lieutenant Morrisseau's Rebellion
FireCongress.org
Second Vermont Republic, VFM
POB 177, W. Pawlet, VT 05775 [email protected]
802 645 9727
"... With over 10,000 dead, the conflict in Ukraine is a humanitarian travesty but of minimal security consequence to America and Europe. Indeed, Kiev's status never was key to Europe's status. An integral part of the Soviet Union and before that the Russian Empire, Ukraine turned into an unexpected bonus for the allies by seceding from the Soviet Union, greatly diminishing the latter's population and territory. Russia's seizure of Crimea and battle in the Donbass destabilized an already semi-failed state, but did not materially alter the European balance of power. Or demonstrate anything other than Moscow's brutal yet limited ambitions. ..."
"... At the same time, transferring lethal arms would divide the U.S. from European nations, many of which oppose further confrontation with Russia, especially over Ukraine. Brussels already bridled at Congress' new sanctions legislation, which passed without consulting the Europeans and targeted European firms. If Moscow responds with escalation, Washington may find no one behind it. ..."
"... Also noteworthy is the fragility of the Ukrainian state. Kiev's self-inflicted wounds are a more important cause than Russian pressure. The government is hobbled by divisions between East and West, violent neo-fascist forces, bitter political factionalism, economic failure, and pervasive corruption. The recent specter of former Georgian President and Ukrainian Governor Mikheil Saakashvili clambering across rooftops, escaping arrest, and railing against President Petro Poroshenko epitomized Ukraine's problems. Kiev, to put it mildly, is not a reliable military partner against its nuclear-armed neighbor. ..."
"... Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon). ..."
Most Americans were told Donald Trump won the presidential election last year. But his
policy toward Russia looks suspiciously like what a President Hillary Clinton would have
pursued. Exhibit A is the apparent decision to arm Ukraine against Russia in the proxy conflict
in the Donbass. This dunderheaded move will simply encourage Moscow to retaliate not only in
Ukraine but against U.S. interests elsewhere around the globe.
With over 10,000 dead, the conflict in Ukraine is a humanitarian travesty but of minimal
security consequence to America and Europe. Indeed, Kiev's status never was key to Europe's
status. An integral part of the Soviet Union and before that the Russian Empire, Ukraine turned
into an unexpected bonus for the allies by seceding from the Soviet Union, greatly diminishing
the latter's population and territory. Russia's seizure of Crimea and battle in the Donbass
destabilized an already semi-failed state, but did not materially alter the European balance of
power. Or demonstrate anything other than Moscow's brutal yet limited ambitions.
In fact, present allied policy makes continuation of the current conflict almost inevitable.
Newly released documents demonstrate that Soviet officials reasonably believed that releasing
their Warsaw Pact captives would not lead to NATO's expansion to Russia's border. Well, well.
Look what actually happened -- the very dramatic increase in tensions that George F. Kennan
predicted would occur. For Russia sees geographical space and buffer states as critical for its
security, and none are more important than Ukraine.
Expanding NATO, disregarding Moscow's historic interests in the Balkans, dismantling onetime
Slavic ally Serbia, aiding "color revolutions" that brought anti-Russian governments to power
along its border, announcing the intention of inducting both Georgia and Ukraine into the
alliance created to confront Moscow, and finally ostentatiously backing a street revolution
against a corrupt but elected leader friendly to Russia -- going to far as to discuss who
should rule after his planned ouster -- could not help but be viewed as hostile in Moscow. One
can easily imagine how Washington would react to similar events in Canada or Mexico.
Russia's response was unjustified but efficient and, most important, limited. Moscow grabbed
Crimea, the only part of Ukraine with a majority of Russian-speakers (who probably favored
joining Russia, though the subsequent referendum occurred in what was occupied Crimea). Moscow
further backed separatists in Eastern Ukraine, perhaps in hopes of grabbing territory or merely
bleeding Kiev.
Some Western responses were near hysteria, imagining a blitzkrieg attack on Ukraine,
conquering the country. The Baltic States saw themselves as the next targets. Poland remembered
its twentieth century conflicts with Moscow. At least one observer added Finland to Moscow's
potential target list. Others worried about intimidation of allied states, borders being
withdrawn, and challenges to the European order. Some afflicted with war fever feared an
attempt to reconstitute the Soviet Union and perhaps roll west from there.
None of which happened.
Perhaps President Vladimir Putin secretly was an Adolf Hitler-wannabe but was dissuaded by
the U.S. and NATO response. However, economic sanctions and military deployments were modest.
Assistance to Ukraine did not include lethal military aid. Most likely, Putin never intended to
start World War III.
Instead, he opportunistically took advantage of the opportunity to snatch Crimea, the
territory with the closest identification with Moscow, simultaneously safeguarding the latter's
major Black Sea base, and create a frozen conflict in the Donbass, effectively preventing
Ukraine's entry into NATO. Russia's activity there also gives him an opportunity to create
additional trouble for the U.S.
Moscow's policy is unpleasant for America and Europe, but only prevents the allies from
doing that which is not in their interest: inducting a security black hole into NATO. Even
before 2014, Ukraine was a political and economic mess. While independent it mattered little
for Western security, in NATO it would bring along all of its disputes and potential conflicts
with Russia, a touchy, nationalistic nuclear power.
What State Department called "enhanced defensive capabilities," which require congressional
approval, aren't likely to raise the price of the conflict enough to force Russia to back down.
The Putin regime has far more at stake in preserving its gains than the U.S. does in reversing
them. Moscow also is better able to escalate and is likely to consistently outbid the West:
Putin's advantages include greater interests, geographic closeness, and popular support. For
Ukraine more weapons would at most mean more fighting, with little additional advantage.
Indeed, the plan to arm Kiev with weapons, especially if anti-tank missiles are included, as
news reports indicate, would risk turning the Donbass conflict from cool to warm--and perhaps
more. Ukraine already joins Russia in failing to implement the Minsk Agreement. Kiev would not
only be better armed, but might believe that it enjoyed an implicit guarantee from Washington,
which in turn would have more at stake and thus be less inclined to abandon its new
"investment." Then what if Moscow escalated? In 2014 the Putin government deployed Russian
military units to counter Ukrainian gains. Would Washington do likewise in response to
Moscow?
At the same time, transferring lethal arms would divide the U.S. from European nations,
many of which oppose further confrontation with Russia, especially over Ukraine. Brussels
already bridled at Congress' new sanctions legislation, which passed without consulting the
Europeans and targeted European firms. If Moscow responds with escalation, Washington may find
no one behind it.
Providing lethal weapons would almost certainly encourage the
Ukrainians to press for even heavier arms and escalate the fighting, as well as discourage them
from negotiating a settlement. U.S. officials refer to the weapons as defensive, but their
capabilities are not so easily compartmentalized. Said Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff said the "ability to stop armored vehicles would be essential for them to
protect themselves." True, but the ability to disable tanks is useful on offense as well as
defense. There has been little movement in the battle line over the last couple of years. New
U.S. weapons aren't necessary to preserve the status quo. Rather, they would most help Ukraine
press harder for a military solution.
Does Kiev want to accept a compromise peace or fight on? Obama Pentagon official Michael
Carpenter said providing weapons "will be a huge boost of support to Ukraine." Moscow is not
concerned about Kiev's military potential. Russia is concerned that the U.S. and Europe say
they intend to induct Ukraine into NATO. The closer the military ties grow between America and
Ukraine, the greater Moscow's incentive to keep the conflict going. Russia also has
opportunities to retaliate against American interests elsewhere. Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey
Ryabkov said: "The United States crossed the line in a sense" and "may lead to new victims in a
country that is neighboring us." America, he added, was an "accomplice in fueling war."
That might be just talk, but Russia can provide aid, sell arms, offer political backing, and
give economic assistance in ways that hamper U.S. activities. Afghanistan, Cuba, Egypt, Iran,
North Korea, Syria, and Venezuela all provide opportunities for Russian mischief. Moscow could
refuse to back additional sanctions on Pyongyang or even provide the latter with S-400
anti-aircraft missiles.
Although limited resources constrain Moscow, politics encourages a tough response. Putin is
running for reelection but has lost support because of the Russian Federation's economic
weakness. Nationalism remains one of his strongest issues; an assault by America on Russian
interests would offer him a means to rally public support.
Also noteworthy is the fragility of the Ukrainian state. Kiev's self-inflicted wounds
are a more important cause than Russian pressure. The government is hobbled by divisions
between East and West, violent neo-fascist forces, bitter political factionalism, economic
failure, and pervasive corruption. The recent specter of former Georgian President and
Ukrainian Governor Mikheil Saakashvili clambering across rooftops, escaping arrest, and railing
against President Petro Poroshenko epitomized Ukraine's problems. Kiev, to put it mildly, is
not a reliable military partner against its nuclear-armed neighbor.
A better approach would be to negotiate for Russian de-escalation by offering to take NATO
membership for Ukraine (and Georgia) off the table. In fact, expanding the alliance is not in
America's interest: the U.S., not, say, Luxembourg, is the country expected to back up NATO's
defense promises. And neither Kiev nor Tbilisi warrants the risk of war with a great power,
especially one armed with nukes. Eliminating that possibility would reduce Moscow's incentive
to maintain a frozen conflict in the Donbass. Backing away also would create the possibility of
reversing military build-ups by both sides elsewhere, especially around Poland and the Baltic
States.
Washington and Moscow have no core security interests in conflict with each other,
especially in Ukraine. Instead of turning a peripheral security issue into a potential military
clash with Moscow, Washington should seek to trade military disengagement from Ukraine for
Russian acceptance of that nation's territorial integrity. Moscow might not agree, but the
Trump administration won't know unless it makes the offer. Right now, it doesn't seem to care
to even try. Quite the contrary.
Doug Bandow is a Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Special Assistant
to President Ronald Reagan. He is the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire
(Xulon).
"I hope I'm wrong, but there's a war coming," Gen. Robert Neller told the Marines on
Thursday, according to
Military.com . "You're in a fight here, an informational fight, a political fight, by
your presence."
https://www.washingtonpost....
One can only be dumbstruck by the breathtaking arrogance and stupidity of this woman:
"What we witnessed here in the Security Council is an insult. It won't be forgotten,"
U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said after the vote, adding that it was the
first veto cast by the United States in more than six years.
"The fact that this veto is being done in defence of American sovereignty and in
defence of America's role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment
for us; it should be an embarrassment to the remainder of the Security Council," Haley
said.
Oh, dear; America is isolated! How did this happen?
The Trump administration must have had a feeling it would go badly, and Haley must have
prepared a response to go with using the American veto; she's just not that good at thinking
on her feet. Politics One-Oh-One: never ask a question to which you do not already know the
answer.
Keep it up, America. You are pissing off Europe to the point it is asking itself, why are
we friends with this jerk? We're not there yet – the USA still has lots of money, and
too many European leaders perceive that the bloc could not survive without lovely American
money. But the progress is incrementally in that direction.
I'm really happy about this. The reason being that the mask is completely off. Nikki Haley is
the most honest UN rep America has had in a long time. Look at the exact words. The clear
meaning is that the UN (and associated international law) is, in the American view, most
emphatically not an association of equal nations bound by common rules. It's a protection
racket where little countries can be bullied by big ones, but big ones (most especially the
US) are accountable to no one. And it's an insult to even suggest that the UN might have
standing to criticize the US the same way it criticizes smaller countries. Everyone knew all
this before, but it's refreshing to see it expressed so honestly.
I absolutely agree, and the more America shits itself right in front of everyone, the better
I like it. Because it is burning all its soft-power bridges; carrots are out and the stick is
in. But quite a few countries don't care for that sort of threatening, and some among those
might even say "Or what? Like, what will you do? Impose sanctions against us? Because you are
running out of trading partners already, fuck-stick, so just keep it up and you won't have
any".
Don't be too quick. Here the OP is happy that US exceptionalism is being forced down the
world's throat. It is clear that the UN and most other "international organizations" such as
WADA, IOP, etc, are US puppets. For some reason, such organizations were trying to act
impartial during the previous cold war. During the current cold war they have no impartiality
whatsoever. So some pancake house waitress can spew all sorts of "refreshing" BS and the
"united nothings" are supposed to eat it with a smile.
I recall lots of wailing in the NATzO media before 1990 how the UN was "ineffective". They
must be all wet with glee that the current UN is nothing more than Washington's tool.
Haley has completed the transformation of diplomacy at the the UN into a farce. Its her party
and she can cry if she wants to.
The 64 nations that voted 'no,' abstained, or were not present during the UN General
Assembly's diplomatic spanking of Washington's Jerusalem move will get a "thank you"
reception from US envoy Nikki Haley.
Perhaps those unwanted miserably losers (e.g. China, Russia, most of Europe, etc.) can
have their version of the deploraball featuring sumptuous Middle East cuisine (no joke, that
would be good eatin').
If you're a liberal, you might think this is great. Instead of the Neoconservatives who have been in power for the last 8 years,
we'll now have neoliberals. You may assume that "neoliberals" are new, smarter liberals -- with liberal social policies, but with
a stronger, more realistic outlook.
Nope.
In reality, neoliberalism is as dissimilar to true progressive liberal politics as neo-conservatism is to true conservative politics
(if you don't know it, most leading neoconservatives
are former followers of Trotsky
communism -- not very conservative, huh?)
For example, did you know that Ronald Reagan was a
leading neoliberal ? In the U.S., of course, he is described as the quintessential conservative. But internationally, people
understand that he really pushed neoliberal economic policies.
As former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer Philip Giraldi
writes :
Neoconservatives and neoliberals are really quite similar, so it doesn't matter who gets elected in 2008. The American public,
weary of preemptive attacks, democracy-promotion, and nation-building, will still get war either way.
And leading neo-conservative strategist Robert Kagan recently
said :
Until now the liberal West's strategy has been to try to integrate these two powers into the international liberal order, to
tame them and make them safe for liberalism."
So neoconservatives are not really conservative and neoliberals are not really liberal. But neocons and neoliberals are very similar
to each other . Neocons are a lot more similar to neoliberals than to true conservatives; neoliberass are more similar to neocons
than to real liberals.
Do you get it? Both the Republican and Democratic party are now run by people with identical agendas: make the big corporations
richer and expand the American empire.
There is only one party, which simply puts on different faces depending on which "branch" of the party is in power. If its the
Democratic branch, there is a slightly liberal social veneer to the mask: a little more funding for social programs, a little more
nice guy talk, a little more of a laissez faire attitude towards gays and minorities, and a little more patient push towards military
conquest and empire.
If its the Republican branch, there's a little more tough guy talk, quicker moves towards military empire, a little more mention
of religion, and a tad more centralization of power in the president.
But there is only a single face behind both masks: the face of raw corporatism, greed and yearning for power and empire.
Until Americans stop getting distracted by the Republican versus Democratic melodrama, America will move steadily forward towards
war, empire and -- inevitably as with any country which extends too far -- collapse.
Neoliberalism is neither "new" or liberal. Neoconservativism is neither new or conservative. They are just new labels for a very
old agenda: serving the powers-that-be, consolidating power, controlling resources. Whether the iron fist has a velvet glove on it
or not, it is still an iron fist.
A true opposition party is needed to counter the never-changing American agenda for military and corporate empire.
This article does much to confuse and disinform. NeoCons are essential modern day Fascists. If you don't recall your politics,
Fascists are to the right of Conservatives on the political spectrum. They have nothing to do with Communists who are far to the
left. During the 1930s Nazis were the NeoCons. They were Fascists, and they also had the overwhelming support of Muslims, who
are also Fascists. Today's NeoLiberals are basically Right Wing and hardly middle of the fence. There is virtually no politics
to the left of centre and this is the catalyst for massive economic stagnation, economic collapse, rapidly growing global instability,
indemic poverty, and an ongoing threat of pandemic disease and general global conflict. Until we have some form of political balance,
we're on the brink of catastrophe, and will probably end up with an enormous mess to clean up.
Fascism is statism and nothing represents the ultimate power of the state then the liberal. No liberal supports our constitution
or a smaller government . But it's innately typical of a liberal to project their agenda onto others.
Communism and Fascism are one degree apart. In Fascism, instead of the elite being part of the government, they are part of
the private sector. That is the only difference. They are both mainly concerned with consolidation of power and shaping the culture
though control of information. Internationally they operate the same as well, expanding their influence through wars of occupation.
Thank you for this article! As an author you always seem to be one step ahead of me in articles I've been planning to write!
I too have been asserting [in comments mostly at OpedNews] that the economic right political 'values' found in NeoLibs, [short
for both NeoLibertarians and Neoliberals] NeoCons, and TheoCons are predominantly the same for months now ever since these corporate
bailouts started. This author has a firm grasp on political ideologies as evidenced in his other articles correctly identifying
the now $2 trillion in US corporate bailouts as the economic policy of Fascism.
The TheoCons-NeoCons-NeoLibs have taken the country so far to the economic right and up in to an authoritarian level since
2000 that most all in the democratic party, excluding a few like Kucinich and Sanders, have moved from a 'centrist' political
ideology to an authoritarian right and moderate conservative political ideology.
Like Anna here more fully displays, the overwhelming majority of Americans just do not have a realistic grasp on global political
ideologies, much less their own personal political values. Political party indoctrination and mud slinging has the population
wrongly convinced democratic politicians are for the most part 'liberals' when they're economic right NeoLiberals and moderate
conservatives while republicans calling themselves 'conservative' are instead radically authoritarian and economic right TheoCons
and NeoCons.
When Americans don't understand their own political values, much less those of the candidate they vote for, they will continue
to make the wrong choices. This would seem to be exactly what the '1' party corporatist system wants so Americans will only continue
making the wrong choices from choosing between 'moderate conservative' Democrats like Obama-Biden, and NeoCon/TheoCon republicans
like McCain-Palin. Who better to assert this 1 party economic right NeoLiberal reality than one of the most renown liberal authors
and intellectuals than Chomsky in his recent article the Anti-Democratic Nature of US Capitalism is Being Exposed.
Chomsky cites America as a "one-party system, the business party, with two factions, Republicans and Democrats" while putting
the blame on this economic crisis where it belongs on the very people who created it, America's NeoLiberals. Anna, if you need
more proof I suggest you take a trip to the non partisan web site created by a group of doctorate degreed political ideology professors,
political experts and sociologists called Political Compass. I guarantee you these experts are far more learned than you are about
political ideologies and political values not just in the US, but around the globe. It will surely shock you to learn based on
speeches, public statements and most crucially voting records that Obama is firmly in the authoritarian right quadrant as a moderate
conservative.
There you'll see their reasons for this based on his voting record and speeches briefly cited in "While Cynthia McKinney and
Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the
wider political landscape of Europe.
Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of
a moderate conservative. For example, in the case of the death penalty he is not an uncompromising abolitionist, while mainstream
conservatives in all other western democracies are deeply opposed to capital punishment. The Democratic party's presidential candidate
also reneged on his commitment to oppose the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He sided with the ultra conservative bloc
in the Supreme Court against the Washington DC handgun ban and for capital punishment in child rape cases. He supports President
Bush's faith-based initiatives and is reported in Fortune to have said that NAFTA isn't so bad."A way to realistically determine
if the candidate you vote for actually represents your own political values is to take the political values test found at political
compass here and afterward learn about the inadequacies inherent in the limited age-old traditional left-right economic view of
political ideologies.
Then you Anna, along with a host of others, may actually start voting in support of candidates that factually represent your
own political values. Or you may find you really aren't this liberal you think you are after all. Regardless, only by learning
more about ones' own political values and those of the candidates Americans support will they get the political leaders, type
of leadership, and government they actually want....
Its debatable. Corporations won't be near as interested in a small government that is less willing to do favors for them. What
do you suggest as a solution to stop the advancement of corporatism? If your answer is to tax the rich more and grow the government
you would just get tyranny. Currently with big government we have both tyranny and fascism.
This is just ignorance -- the Republicans and Democrats are the same, but Sunni and Shia Islam are not just arbitrary branches
of some terrorist collective called Islam. I suggest you read more about Islam, it's extraordinarily misunderstood AND--I might
add--misinforming people about Islam is an integral part of the agenda of the corporate GOP-DEM elite. I'm not a Muslim, for the
record.
You are confusing the issue. The work neoliberal applies to an economic philosophy which is also sometimes called the Chicago
School or the Washington Consensus. It is related to what we often call globalization, and it has to to with "liberalization"
of economies, in other words privatization of publicly held industries etc. Liberal in the American political sense it totally
unrelated to neoliberal. Neoconservatism is a political philosophy that espouses vanguardism and militant foreign policy. They
are related in that their goals dove tail, kind of like apples and oranges are similar in that they are both edible.
The state Department has approved the delivery to the Ukrainian army of modified 50
calibre Barrett sniper rifles, "Model M107A"
It may be related to the Model 82A1®/M107®, but the M107A1 is far from a simple
evolution. Driven by the demands of combat, every component was re-engineered to be lighter
yet stronger. Designed to be used with a suppressor, this rifle allows you to combine
signature reduction capabilities with the flawless reliability of the original Barrett M107,
but with a weight reduction of 5 pounds. Advanced design and manufacturing make the M107A1
more precise than ever.
UN General Assembly Adopts Resolution Condemning Crimea Human Rights Violations
The resolution was approved by 71 member states, including Canada, the United States
and the EU. Twenty-five countries, including Russia, China, Iran, India and Syria, voted
against the measure, while 77 delegations, mainly from Latin America and Africa, abstained
from the vote.
"[The resolution] condemns violations, abuses, measures and practices of
discrimination against the residents of the temporarily occupied Crimea, including Crimean
Tatars, as well as Ukrainians and persons belonging to other ethnic and religious groups, by
the Russian occupation authorities," the resolution said on Tuesday.
The Senator from the Crimea has given an assessment of the UN General Assembly
resolution
The Senator from the Crimean Peninsula, Olga Kovitide, has reacted to the UN General
Assembly resolution, in which RF is called "an occupying power".
Earlier, the Press Secretary of the President of Russia, Dmitry Peskov, said the
wording of the UN General Assembly resolution on the Crimea as wrong.
"We believe this language is incorrect and do not agree with them", the Kremlin
representative told reporters whilst commenting on the document.
Kovitide said that the Russian Federation had clearly stated that the issue of the
Crimea is closed. "The Crimea is not a problem: the Crimea is Russian territory, and any
decisions and resolutions that are contrary to the legitimate will of the Crimean people
shall never be accepted", the politician said in comments to the portaliz.ru
.
They just don't seem to get it, do they?
The people have decided, not arseholes in Kiev or at the UN or EU.
Does not the term " We, the people ring a bell deep in the canyons of the
collective historical memory of those Western "democrats"?
We the People of the Autonomous Republic of the Crimea, in order to form a more perfect
union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence,
promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity, do hereby recognize the Constitution of the Russian Federation and with sound mind
and a clear conscience do declare that the aforementioned republic is now a member state
within that Federation and that the citizens of that self-same republic shall henceforth be
citizens of the Russian Federation.
CIS states that voted against the UN resolution that the Crimea is "occupied": Armenia,
Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan.
Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan did not to vote for this uncomfortable anti-Russian
resolution (or could not?). They are not listed even among the abstentions.
The big ones that voted against were China and India.
Also against: Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Nicaragua, The Philippines, Serbia, Syria,
Venezuela, Bolivia, Burundi, Cambodia, Eritrea, Myanmar, South Africa, The Sudan, Uganda and
Zimbabwe.
So it is clear that Russia must face the facts and must immediately start moving out its
occupation army from the Crimea in preparation for handing back the peninsula to the Ukraine
-- or else!
So as long ago promised, there will soon be a Ukrainian victory parade in Simferopol!
The Ukrainian politicians always reckon everything which goes in their favour is 'immensely
powerful', and always make sure to publicly thank countries for even the slightest
acquiescence, so as to make clear that they unquestioningly support Ukraine and its position.
It's just their way of 'penciling in' friends and annoying Russia.
China voted against it rather than abstaining. Driving China and Russia into an alliance
was the biggest mistake the USA ever made, because there is no way NATO could defeat both
That's it; get that useless waster Trump out of there, and get Obama back in the White House.
When Obama left, Russia was friendless and alone, without allies, and its economy was in
tatters. Trump has barely had the job five minutes, and already Russia is half of America's
problems with achieving economic dominance! What the hell is going on??
It explicitly states that "the United States will no longer turn a blind eye to
violations, cheating or economic aggression" .
Lucky for America that other nations and blocs turn a blind eye to economic aggression, or
America would be dead a thousand times over – there is no more economically aggressive
nation on the earth. What would you call sanctions imposed – supposedly for the benefit
of Europe – which Washington will now not let Europe back away from, and stubborn
efforts to block an advantageous energy pipeline to Europe so that the USA has a better
market for its own product? I'd call that pretty aggressive.
One of Russia's biggest oil companies, Tatneft, has been doing business in Crimea
despite the risk of being placed on a U.S. sanctions blacklist, according to company
documents and a source close to Tatneft.
Most big Russian oil firms pulled out of Crimea after Washington imposed sanctions over
Moscow's annexation of the region from Ukraine in 2014 and threatened to put any company
operating on the peninsula on its list of sanctioned entities.
Additional reporting by David Axelrod in SEVASTOPOL, Crimea, Agnieszka Barteczko in
WARSAW, Wojciech Zurawski in KRAKOW, Joel Schectman in WASHINGTON and Alexei Yarkovoy and
Olga Yagova in MOSCOW, Editing by Timothy Heritage Our Standards:The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
####
Neuters, acting as an arm of the United States government, hunting high and hunting low
for Russian subterfuge of United States imposed sanction, in this case a lonely Crimean fuel
station. Such groundbreaking investigative reporting of the highest order! Prize
nominations for Neuters on the way. Not a shred of shame. Standards & Principles my
ass!
Indeed I do! There was the fear in the early 1990s that it might have voted for
'independence' as Chechnya did (Tartarstan did not sign the initial Russian Federation
agreement in 1992 & their referendum on 'sovereignty' passed in 1993), but thought better
of it and got quite a sweet deal with Moscow instead which was supposed to be up for
renewal/renegotiation quite some years ago but I've not heard of since. Tartarstan is quite
the performer in aerospace and engineering technologies, the Kazan Aviation Factory
(Tupolev):
On the one hand, the western press sermonizes, hands folded to convey pathos, on the terrible
plight of the Crimeans – mistreated, misguided, struggling. On the other, it does
everything in its power to ensure nobody can do business there, and says nothing when Ukraine
attempts to starve and freeze them into submission.
Oh, look; isn't that sweet? The IOC is going to hold a medals ceremony at Pyeongchang, at
which athletes who were deemed to have been cheated out of medals by the doping
dreaming-of-Stalin Russian athletes at Sochi will be
recognized as the champions they would have been . Probably. So if you won bronze, you
might get that upgraded to a gold like anti-doping crusader Beckie
Scott did . You know, that's what makes me so proud of the west; they don't just accept
it when they're beaten – the tough get going, baby, and they simply hold a new medal
ceremony and award themselves medals. They'll want to get their upgrades quickly, before
'Curveball' Rodchenkov's latest database story falls apart and they have to admit once again
that they have nothing. And hey; it's a Canadian
tradition – if you don't win, just make a big stink until you are awarded a medal,
too.
Anything to further provoke and humiliate the Russians. I can't imagine what measures will
be taken to ensure Russian athletes do not win any medals at Pyeongchang – perhaps they
will have to start 5 seconds after the rest of the field, as a further justified penalty for
their cheating. Or wear one sneaker and one boot.
Mark, you were right to link that 2002 Olympics when Berezhnaya/Sikharulidze were forced to
share their gold medal with the Canadian pair. Who should have been satisifed with the
Silver, but decided to throw a big tantrum, like two big babies.
When the Olympic Committee gave in to the Canadians (who were backed by Uncle Sam on skates),
that was the moment when Pandora's Box was opened all the way. Prior to that, I think the
rule was pretty much, that judges decisions are final. Unless you can prove that the judges
were bribed, then their word should be final. Especially in this case, where the judges could
prove with chapter and verse why Berezhnaya/Sikharulidze performed a superior program and
earned more points.
By the way, I have met both Berezhnaya and Sikharulidze, they are wonderful people as well
as brilliant skaters. And my taking their side against the Canadian pair is not because they
are Russians, either. My conscience is clean in this regard.
Because when the opposite happened, and Russian skater Plushchenko tried to dispute his loss
to the American Evan Lycasek, I took Lycasek's side.
Plushchenko's argument was, in essence, "Well, I had a quad in my program, and Evan didn't,
so I should get the gold."
Lycasek didn't have a quad, but he compensated for it by racking up more points in other
parts of his program. He won fair and square, and Plushchenko showed poor sportsmanship at
the time, he should have simply walked up to Lycasek and shaked his hand.
Similarly, the two Canadian twats argued that their program was superior to
Berezhnaya/Sikharulidze because they "skated cleanly", and the latter had one little bobble
on one landing of one jump. It doesn't matter. Berezhnaya could have fallen on her ass and
still won, they racked up more points with more difficult elements. Plus, their skating was
superior in general, they had more flow and better edgework.
It's all about the points, which is why people should not second-guess the judges. The
judges are the experts here, not the public, nor even the skaters themselves.
I don't really want to blame the Americans, because it seems even to me that I am doing that
a lot lately and I am trying conscientiously to be fair. But I believe that without American
backing and encouragement – as well as that of other western nations – the
Canadian pair would have stopped whining and accepted the decision. I wouldn't say Canada was
particularly beloved of the USA; they were simply a means to an end, which was to prevent
Russia from a clean win. I thought the Canadian pair skated a very clean and
professional-looking program – flawless, even – but it was unquestionably a safer
and less complicated one.
How sad is the world when even figure skating must be weighed in its political impact?
As the Pyeongchang Games kick off in February, it will also mark five years since American
Olympian Kara Goucher alerted USADA to
doping at The Oregon Project , Nike's program for training American distance runners for
the Olympics. Five years since USADA was tipped off, two years since the scandal was publicly
announced, and what? What do you think – the investigation is still ongoing. I'll tell
you what – get Richard McLaren, Dickie Pound, Gunter Younger and the WADA road show in
there – it only took them a couple of days to find the 'evidence' in the
Moscow database, which it allegedly received 'from a whistleblower' according to the New York
Times and from Rodchenkov himself according to other sources, conclusively proved at last
that Russia had a state-sponsored doping program. But investigations of the Land Of The Free
in The Land Of The Free well, they take much longer. It's a time zone thing, I
think.
The controversial decision to award the 2021 World Athletics Championships to Eugene,
Oregon, is being investigated by the FBI and the Criminal Division of America's Internal
Revenue Service (IRS), the BBC has learned.
The US city was awarded the event in 2015 with athletics' governing body the IAAF
bypassing the usual formal bidding process.
French prosecutors investigating corruption within the IAAF launched their own inquiry
into the awarding of the event in 2015.
Former IAAF president Lamine Diack, who is now effectively under house arrest in France
over corruption allegations, was at the centre of the decision.
Eugene was handed the event despite strong interest from the Swedish city of
Gothenburg.
The Oregon city is closely associated with Nike, whose birthplace is only a few miles
away.
Nike funds much of the University of Oregon's sports facilities, where many of Eugene 2021
events will be held.
A BBC story in November 2015 suggested the IAAF president Lord Coe may have lobbied his
predecessor over the bid, and revealed he had discussed it with a senior Nike executive.
At that time Lord Coe was paid £100,000 a year as an ambassador for Nike. Lord Coe
denied he had lobbied anyone on behalf of Eugene's bid.
However, he stepped down from his Nike role – which he had held for 38 years –
later that month saying accusations of a conflict of interest were "a distraction" and "not
good for Nike or the IAAF".
Bjorn Eriksson, who was the head of the Gothenburg team denied the opportunity to stage a
rival bid, said it had been a 'violation of fair play.'
Now, the BBC understands, the American authorities – including tax investigators at
the IRS – are seeking to investigate if there has been any wrongdoing committed in the
US, bringing to total number of agencies investigating the awarding of the championships to
three.
A spokeswoman for the IAAF and Lord Coe said she was unaware of any FBI and IRS
probes.
"The IAAF team has not received notification from the FBI or IRS. However we are committed
to working closely with any key investigation, as we do with the French investigation team,
and will take action if proof is found of any wrong doing in an IAAF bidding process."
Both the FBI and IRS have yet to respond to the BBC.
The FBI famously investigated corruption in football's world governing body Fifa,
resulting in guilty pleas from numerous high-ranking officials.
The background
The Eugene bid was led by Vin Lananna's TrackTown USA, another organisation with close
links to Nike.
The 2015 BBC investigation uncovered emails which claim Coe – an ambassador for
sports giant Nike and then vice-president of world athletics – "reached out" to Diack
with his support for Eugene's bid.
After of losing out in a bid to host the 2019 championships to Doha, Lananna and TrackTown
USA quickly turned their attention to 2021, and began lobbying the IAAF.
Coe had been on the IAAF evaluation commission which visited Doha, Eugene, and the other
unsuccessful bidder for 2019, Barcelona.
An email sent by Nike executive Craig Masback to Lananna suggested that Coe lobbied on
Eugene's behalf.
The email, titled '2021' and in which Coe is referred to as "Seb", reads: "I spoke with
Seb this morning. We covered several topics but I asked specifically about 2021.
"He made clear his support for 2021 in Eugene but made equally clear he had reached out to
Diack specifically on this topic and got a clear statement from Diack that 'I am not going to
take any action at the April meeting (in Beijing) to choose a 2021 site'."
Yet it was at that April meeting of the IAAF's council that Diack announced the surprise
vote on giving the championships directly to Eugene.
Coe told the BBC he "did not lobby anyone" over Eugene's bid, but "encouraged them to
re-enter another bidding cycle as they had a strong bid".
Other emails seen by the BBC revealed that Lananna made at least one trip to Europe to
visit Diack a few weeks after this email was written.
And by 15 April 2015, the campaign had paid off.
Several IAAF council members have told the BBC that Diack made clear his support for
Eugene, and urged his fellow members to follow suit.
The secret vote was carried by 23-1, with one abstention.
I highly doubt it; if the investigation is taking place in America, that self-righteous
persecution thing tends to disappear in favour of ass-covering. They may have been a ball of
fire investigating FIFA, but FIFA is not headquartered in America.
Just a bit related to the discussion of Eastern European revolutions above (I decided to
write a new comment rather than replying because it's a general point, and also the comments
are getting a little narrow on the screen).
This "advice" might seem a little suspect, given that it's coming from a social
democrat/communitarian who's not sympathetic to the Soviet system, but I think there's a
really important point of principle at play. People with socialist leanings/sympathy for the
Soviet system often criticize Western countries, and most specifically America, for imposing
its social system on other countries by violent means. The key point here is that this
criticism is often framed not only on the basis of the type of system imposed, but because of
the imposition itself. The idea is that neoliberal capitalism is bad in itself, so it's bad
for any country to have that system, but it's even worse for a country to have that system
because it was imposed by another country by force. The force itself is treated as an evil in
addition to the ends to which that force is put.
This creates a huge problem for any attempt to defend the Communist governments of Eastern
Europe. With the exception of the governments of Yugoslavia, Albania and (partially)
Czechoslovakia, these governments were 100% foreign impositions, brought about by force of
arms, violence, murder and compulsion. If the expression "puppet regime" has any meaning at
all, it describes the governments of Poland, Hungary, Romania, etc. perfectly. The trouble
here is that you can't have it both ways. You can go the Stalin route and say that every
powerful country imposes its system "as far as its armies can reach. It cannot be otherwise."
Then you can criticize America for imposing CAPITALISM, but you can't criticize American for
IMPOSING capitalism. Alternatively, you can criticize America for both, but then you're not
going to have any ground left to defend what the Soviet Union did in Eastern Europe.
Looking forward, what's important for "leftists" of all stripes is to formulate a program
that works for the future. But you're going in with one boot off if you shackle yourself to
the worst aspects of the past. Even the most abysmal of neoliberal hacks can admit that
America's record is far from flawless in Central America (for example). Why should it be so
hard for people sympathetic to the Soviets to do the same?
Just a quick lunch time reply. The Soviet Union pretty much left alone Eastern European
countries prior to WW II – no attempt to impose their will on countries that were
hostile to their very existence. (contrast with the US actions in Latin America).
The invasion of SU from the West (Germany, Romania, Italy and other less overt allies)
left devastation and death on a scale unprecedented in human history. A major purpose of the
invasion was the murder/enslavement of the Russian population. So, this was a rather unique
situation facing SU leadership. How do handle neighbors who are psychopaths (Germany and its
allies clearly fit that description)? What to do?
Any sane national leadership, having survived that murderous attack, would be expected to
remove the root cause of that attack. Again, before WW II, the SU was comfortable with its
neighbors, but after, the attempted genocide/enslavement, not so much.
Ryan, what would you recommend for the SU after WW II? Allow the same forces that sought
their total destruction back in business at its borders? A nuclear armed adversary possibly
allowed to set up military bases next door (actually pretty much what we have today)?
As far as I am concerned, Germany and eastern Europe got off easy. No reparations for the
SU – just military confrontation with its former alleged allies. The SU did what it had
do to. It can be rightfully argued that it could have been done better, but its general
actions were generally justifiable in my opinion.
As an aside, Yugoslavia would have been much better off if the SU had "imposed" itself
there. But we ended up with Tito, a monster who eagerly did the bidding to Britain which
included hiding the Serbian holocaust and allowing its perpetrators to escape justice.
I'll deal with the rest later (including the absolutely absurd attack against Tito), but
firstly, I want to address a factual error.
"As far as I am concerned, Germany and eastern Europe got off easy. No reparations for the
SU – just military confrontation with its former alleged allies."
This is simply false. After WW2, the SU extracted reparations from East Germany, Hungary
and Romania. These reparations were only canceled in the 1950's after Stalin died.
Additionally, the Soviet Union set up the "SovRoms" in Romania, which systematically looted
the country, forcing Romania to buy German equipment at inflated prices. Meanwhile the Soviet
Union was directly taking over 90% plus of various important German industries. This was the
definition of a Carthaginian peace.
Glad to do so
The reason why I called the accusation against Tito "absurd" isn't because Tito is above
criticism.It's because anything he can be criticized for doesn't hold a candle to what was
going on at the same time in the Soviet Union. The differences are many, and all in
Yugoslavia's favour. The Soviet Union completely disempowered the workers, forbade
emigration, and left almost no room for dissent. On the other hand, if socialism means the
control of real workers over the means of production, Yugoslavia is the only country in
history that's made a real go at it. The experiment wasn't completely successful (for
example, Yugoslavia struggled with unemployment more than its neighbours did), but as an
economic model, it was both more humane and more successful than the model used in the Soviet
Union and the Eastern bloc (with the partial exception of Poland and Hungary, which were both
somewhat ideosyncratic, and outshone their neighbours economically). The problem of
unemployment was mitigated by the fact that workers were allowed to travel to find work, and
most of them did so, rather than cutting off ties with Yugoslavia and just disappearing in
the West. Yugoslavia bested the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc at the most basic test of
providing for the people; it could trust them not to all rush for the exits the moment they
were given the opportunity. Finally, contrast the Soviet response to even the slightest
dissent to Tito's response to the student protests in 1968. Can anyone imagine Brezhnev or
even Khrushchev saying "the students are right," and actually addressing their concerns? The
question answers itself.
And the idea that Tito "eagerly did the bidding of Britain" is a malicious slander. Tito was
one of the central figures in the non-aligned movement, which was by no means captive to
Western interests (Kissinger actually complained of the exact opposite, that despite their
claims of neutrality the non-aligned countries tended to tilt in the Soviet direction). As
for the "Serbian holocaust", without denying that the activities of the Ustase in particular
really were genocidal, the track record of WW2 in Yugoslavia is more complicated than that.
While not as bloody as the Ustase, the Chetniks' hands were hardly clean either. Faced with
trying to hold together a country with a history of bloody ethnic conflict, Tito decided to
let sleeping dogs lie and try to move forward. It can certainly be questioned whether that
decision was the best one. But it's overheated rhetoric to suggest that Tito acted the way he
did out of some fundamentally sinister motive. He made a hard decision in difficult
circumstances, and given what came before and after him, there's a good case to be made that
he might have been onto something.
Frankly I do not know even where to begin in a response but I will touch on one statement:
that, in my experience as a mature man, is simply the most absurd string of words I have had
the misfortune of reading:
As for the "Serbian holocaust", without denying that the activities of the Ustase in
particular really were genocidal, the track record of WW2 in Yugoslavia is more complicated
than that. While not as bloody as the Ustase, the Chetniks' hands were hardly clean
either.
Really, Mr. Ward? Per Widipedia:
The Jasenovac concentration camp (Serbo-Croatian: Logor
Jasenovac/Логор
Јасеновац, pronounced
[lôːgor jasěnoʋat͡s]; Yiddish:
יאסענאוואץ) was an
extermination camp established in Slavonia by the authorities of the Independent State of
Croatia (NDH) during World War II. The camp was established by the governing Ustaše
regime and not operated by Nazi Germany.[4] It was one of the largest concentration camps in
Europe[5] and the camp has been referred to as "the Auschwitz of the Balkans" and "the
Yugoslav Auschwitz".[6]
Croatian authorities and Western sympathizers, as to be expected sought to minimize the
number of victims. However, the most plausible numbers is 750,000 victims, the great majority
Serb men, women and children as well as significant numbers of Jews and Roma.
Your claim of implied equivalency of the resistance of General Mihailovich and the
Chetniks against fascism to Croatia's genocide of the Serbs is breathtaking. Even the worst
of Croatian apologists have never advanced such an argument to my knowledge.
Mr. Ward, you are a contemptuous hack of the worst sort sort in this matter and an
apologist for genocide.
28 million dead, the bulk of their economic base devastated. And what was the amount of these
"reparations"? My wife, from Romania, did recount the story of her parents experience after
WW II, so I do have so fairly direct information on this topics. There was some confiscation,
some distributed to the poor and some likely taken back to the SU. But to claim that these
"reparations:" came anywhere close to the damage done to the SU is simply absurd. To repeat,
Germany and its allies got off easy.
Just a data point per Wikipedia:
Most heavy industry (constituting 20% of total production) was claimed by the Soviet
Union as reparations, and Soviet joint stock companies
Presumably, this was in East Germany which makes it likely a tiny fraction of what was
destroyed in the SU.
Per Wikipedia, the allies initially began to confiscate German industry and then switched
to the Marshal Plan to restore German industrial power. Wonder what SU thought about
that.
"... The Government of the United States does not look with favor upon governments unfriendly to the Soviet Union on the borders of the Soviet Union." ..."
I think I can find the so-called "middle ground" here.
The Berlin and Hungary incidents were similar to recent Syrian events, in that an actual popular rebellion (sparked by whatever
causes) was utilized and exploited by Uncle Sam, as part of regime-change effort.
And Uncle Sam being in cahoots with, and funding, Nazi remnants.
Hence, the rebellions, however "noble" their original purpose, were amplified and turned in a counter-revolutionary direction,
with all kinds of unsavory players involved.
Not unlike Banderite Ukraine.
The CIA trace is hardly a secret, nor is the fact that the CIA relied heavily on repainted Nazis and eastern European chauvinists.
Combine that with the Nazi-esque slogans of the Berlin rioters, and the tinfoil hats can confidently be set aside.
Why would you think otherwise? Did you think the Nazi populace of Germany or Hungary had undergone some metamorphosis? Hitler's
regime fell from favour not because the people of Germany rejected the malignant nationalism it stood for, but because the regime
was defeated. The Nazi mindset is abundantly obvious in almost every German alive today, regardless of ostensible political persuasion,
and Hungary barely even bothers to feign contrition.
Eastern European potato-people don't have noble aspirations, and they generally understand 'democracy' and other such concepts
as figleafs to wear and war totems to carry as they destroy their tribal enemies.
Firstly, there's no "NATzO" narrative (and, as an aside, if you want people to take you seriously, I would suggest you stop using
the term "NATzO". It's childish, and makes you sound like a fucking mouth-breather). There are the public and undisputed facts
of the case. There were riots in East Germany and an insurrection in Hungary. Both were put down by some mixture of local communist
forces and Soviet troops (More of the first in Germany and more of the latter in Hungary). Those are the "bare bones" of the two
cases. Now, you've added to this base of publicly visible facts the claims that
a) the rebellious elements in both countries were primarily composed of former fascists.
b) the rebellious elements in both countries were led and organized by the CIA and MI6.
These are both positive claims. Positive claims need evidence. And evidence means real evidence, as in statistical analyses
of known insurgents, CIA or MI6 documents, etc. not "That's the sort of thing those evil bastards would have done, therefore they
did it!" or, "Since people who ask me for evidence don't answer my demand that they (impossibly) prove a negative, that's as good
as proving a positive!" You've made two clearly positive claims, and rather bold ones at that, so until you provide at least some
evidence in favour of them, you're talking out of your ..hat.
Ryan: I believe the facts do show that the CIA was involved in these various rebellions in Eastern Europe. Maybe post-facto.
However, even though I disagree with your overall point here, I do sympathize with your frustration regarding debating with
"Kirill". Who, when asked to produce facts, is only capable of violent ripostes such as "Put up or shut up."
He is a tool, that's true. And Operation Paperclip is an issue completely separate from the Hungarian uprising of 1956. So that
point of his is irrelevant.
But this is Kirill, after all, so what can you do?? Consider yourself lucky, that he didn't threaten you with rapey anal sex or
forced fellatio, that's his usual response to comments he doesn't agree with!
A simplistic analysis but I will offer it nevertheless. The Nazi deep state, as Pavlo powerfully described, was/is alive and well
in Germany. The upper management shakeup in West Germany (i.e. the end of WW II) scarcely touched the financial, industrial or
commercial elites. Denazification was sought by FDR but was not pursued IIRC from various articles on the subject.
The Nazi's nicely adjusted to life in West Germany; just needed to learn to be more deceitful as their British mentors no doubt
taught them. In East Germany and Hungary, Nazi's were not welcomed at any level and it stands to reason considering the carnage
that was orders of magnitude worse than in Western Europe not to mention that extermination thing about Slavs. Hence, some Hungarians,
excluded from power due to a Nazi past, were ready to "rebel" after any degree of prodding and promises by the West.
As should be well known, the West had a strong desire to save Nazis regardless of their genocidal past (or perhaps because
of it). Operation Ratlines comes to mind.
Well, I couldn't speak to CIA involvement. It is, however, a matter of record that Radio Free Europe
did everything
it could to imply that American forces would intervene to back up the Hungarians if they would only get the ball rolling.
I suppose it's true they never actually said that in so many words, but it seems clear that is what Hungarian patriots inferred
from its encouragement. And it was the State Department which transmitted to Tito, after the revolt was well underway, " The
Government of the United States does not look with favor upon governments unfriendly to the Soviet Union on the borders of the
Soviet Union." Eisenhower sort of condemned the Soviet action, but only said the American people were very sad about it and
would do all in their 'peaceful power' to help them. I think the message that there would be no military assistance was pretty
clear. Moreover, when Franco decided to send weapons to Hungarians and secured an agreement with Adenauer to refuel the Spanish
planes in Germany, Eisenhower pressured Adenauer and got the agreement canceled. The Hungarians certainly felt official America
had betrayed them.
It's well-known that Radio Free Europe encouraged uprisings in Eastern Europe, and that they specifically gave Hungarians the
idea that they would support them if they rose up. Everyone already knows that. That's also entirely unexceptional, being the
kind of agitprop that both sides of the Cold War engaged in routinely. That's an entirely different matter from actually orchestrating
the uprising, and it has (if possible) even less relevance to the question of whether the insurgents were former fascists.
Most of the insurgents were NOT former fascists, they were ordinary people who didn't like what the new government was doing.
The issue is about how all of this evolved, and the the amorphous "leaders" and their connections to the CIA.
The best comparison for the 1956 Hungary thing is the later thing in Poland, the "Solidarity" movement, and so on.
Real actual industrial workers, but, behind the scenes, CIA pulling all of the strings.
No kidding.
People really need to figure this out, because at some point in the future, there will be an actual Revolution, and we need to
make sure it stays clean.
"Most of the insurgents were NOT former fascists, they were ordinary people who didn't like what the new government was doing."
Really??
So EXACTLY what were they doing in WW2 (GPW)?
"Real actual industrial workers, but, behind the scenes, CIA pulling all of the strings.
No kidding."
It's important to be clear what "pulling all of the strings" actually means in this context. As far as I'm aware, there's no
evidence of CIA involvement in Hungary except for the RFE broadcasts, and no evidence of CIA involvement in East Germany at all
in 1953. The trouble is that it's easy to use any scrap of CIA involvement as an excuse to avoid the uncomfortable implications
that the "workers' states" of Eastern Europe never commanded the loyalty of the actual flesh-and-blood workers. But this is really
easy to do, and can be done on all sides. This is the same kind of thing that people do from the ideological opposite side in
saying that, because the Donbas rebels have received critical assistance from foreign Russian volunteers and Russian material
support (as well as, in very limited quantities, Russian troops). This is a dodge, but the key point is that it's a dodge on both
sides. Getting back to the Hungarian example, the CIA (through RFE) had one and only one impact on the events, to make the Hungarian
people forget their fear. If there were real solid local support for the Communist government, rumours of American support for
revolution would have mobilized both sides. The loyalists to the regime would have mobilized to protect their government from
"Yankee imperialists". But no such thing happened, because the actual principled support for the Communist regime in Hungary was
negligible. A real legitimate Hungarian government wouldn't have needed Soviet tanks to prop it up.
Honestly, I don't know what proportion of the Hungarian rebels were fascists. I am sure there were a lot of fascists who joined
up later and were egged on, etc.
But the matter is way more complicated than that. As in most Eastern European counter-revolutions, the matter began, not with
the fascists, but with malcontents within the Communist Party itself.
Apparently Rákosi did the usual Stalinist thing of purging his own (Communist) Party of dissidents, etc. Estimates are, that around
7,000 Communist Party members were purged. Which doesn't necessarily mean executed, but at least arrested, lost their jobs, etc.
These types of rebellions in the Communist world, usually start as an inter-Party thing.
If people could cut a break and keep their jobs and Party membership, then they would remain a force for stability in society.
But the Stalinists often seem to have a problem maintaining employee satisfaction among their cadre. Party leaders have a habit
of using their political position as a way to settle personal scores. Then things get out of hand. This is what happened in Hungary,
and it could have all been prevented, I think.
We may be ignoring the religious element which may be ever more important than the fascist element. The Vatican was a key player
in the anti-communist/anti-Soviet efforts in eastern Europe. I don't think anyone can dispute that. So, if the discussion is expanded
to include the role of the Vatican, then Western influence in the Hungarian revolt can be better appreciated.
The USA was also busy installing various juntas in Latin America during the 1950s. Let's not forget that. The US simply has no
record of fostering democracy abroad. In the name of goodness it engineered dozens of bloody coups and uprisings around the world.
Anyone with a functional brain can see that this was motivated by economic and power self-interest and not selfless sacrifice
for the good of humanity.
BTW, the British were training Ukr Nazi collaborators after 1945 to stage insurrection in Ukraine (I knew one such Ukr). This
was a full alliance with the worst sort of scum to engineer regime change. There is no credibility to stories that the Hungarian
"uprising" was spontaneous and had nothing to do with Nazi elements boosted by the USA and the UK. The fact that the death toll
was faked up by a factor of 25 is supporting evidence of this. A death toll of 2,400 is very small considering the intensity of
the combat. This figure was not the result of machine gunning of peaceful protestors. If a true uprising happened in 1956, then
the scale of public participation and deaths would be vastly higher. This is what the NATzO propaganda about "up to 60,000 deaths"
was based on.
Patient Observer, that's a very good point about Vatican involvement.
We see that on steroids during the Solidarity events in Poland.
Which also started small, as an actual strike of industrial workers, and then got out of hand.
There was a very healthy faction within the Polish Communist Party which did a lot to help preserve social stability, which were
able to mollify the real workers with their real economic concerns, and could have been successful in the end; but the unhealthy
elements overwhelmed them, egged on by external enemies.
And again, this is partly a problem of the Communist Parties themselves, the way they opened themselves up and became mass
parties, allowing in all sorts of riffraff, careerists and class enemies, who were willing to switch sides on a dime.
We see this same phenomenon 10 years later, in Russia itself (Gorbachov-Yeltsin).
If Communist Parties want to be taken seriously ever again, then they need to be willing to make themselves smaller, and idea-driven.
Not career- or money-driven.
Don't forget too that during the 1980s and 90s the Pope was the Polish priest formerly known as Karol Wojtyla. He very likely
interfered in Polish politics more than he should have given his position as Pope. During his reign as Pope, the liberation theology
movement in Latin America that developed among some Catholic priests and theologians and which had grassroots support among the
poor was crushed by right-wing governments in that region. Pope John Paull II was known to have opposed liberation theology because
it was partly based on Marxist beliefs.
"So, if the discussion is expanded to include the role of the Vatican, then Western influence in the Hungarian revolt can be better
appreciated."
This is a completely different matter. There's nothing meaningfully "Western" about the Catholic Church in the context of Eastern
Europe. The Catholic Church is the indigenous religion of most of Eastern Europe. Ironically, in Poland and Hungary, it was the
Communist governments, not the Catholic resistance, that was "imported" (at bayonet-point, for that matter).
*Sigh* I'm not sure why I'm bothering to still respond to this nonsense when there's actual intelligent conversation going on,
but here's one last comment, not that I'll actually need to say anything really new . The USA was also busy installing various juntas in Latin America during the 1950s .BTW, the British were training Ukr Nazi
collaborators after 1945 to stage insurrection in Ukraine (I knew one such Ukr). This was a full alliance with the worst sort
of scum to engineer regime change.
What in the universe does any of this have to do with Poland or Hungary? This is exactly the sort of dreck I identified before,
"This is the kind of thing those evil bastards would do, therefore they did it!" It's a piss poor argument, and if you had any
real evidence for your assertions about Poland and Hungary, you wouldn't resort to such rube goldberg devices.
There is no credibility to stories that the Hungarian "uprising" was spontaneous and had nothing to do with Nazi elements
boosted by the USA and the UK.
And here we go again. That's not a "story". That's the legitimate null hypothesis. To claim that the US and UK were involved (beyond
the RFE broadcasts that everyone already knows about) is a positive claim. Positive claims require direct evidence to be credible.
And despite being asked three times now to provide the slightest scrap of direct evidence for your assertions, you've failed to
do so.
The fact that the death toll was faked up by a factor of 25 is supporting evidence of this.
For anyone intelligent enough to tie their shoes in the morning, this isn't supporting evidence of anything. By this logic,
the Stalinist purges and the Cultural Revolution in China were Western operations. What is the evidence you ask? Westerners exaggerated
the death tolls involved! Doesn't that make it obvious?
There was a very healthy faction within the Polish Communist Party which did a lot to help preserve social stability, which
were able to mollify the real workers with their real economic concerns, and could have been successful in the end; but the unhealthy
elements overwhelmed them, egged on by external enemies.
A couple comments here. Firstly, to talk about "the real workers" is the purest "No true Scotsman"-ism. Workers are workers,
whether they adopt political views you (or anyone else) find congenial or not. As to "mollifying" real economic concerns, another
(and more accurate) way of putting it, is buying workers off. The Polish Communist Party held no real loyalty among the workers
of Poland, and only kept them quiet by artificially suppressing prices using borrowed funds. The first major thrust of the Solidarity
movement at the turn of the 80's took advantage of discontent among the workers when the government tried to raise prices (to
stop bleeding money on loans). To the extent that the government managed to buy peace for a few years, it was only by lowering
prices again, and paying for it with a credit card. This was not a principled response to the unrest, and those workers who were
"mollified" by it were the most mercenary and least principled of workers. This is why the whole rotten edifice crumbled so easily
in 1989. No one really cared about defending it if it would actually cost them anything to do so. Time-serving bureaucrats paid
off time-serving workers, and as soon as the bill came, everyone had a sudden urge to head to the washroom.
Secondly, again, the Catholic Church was not an "external enemy", least of all in Poland. The Poles themselves were always
much more loyal to the Church than they ever were to bureaucrats imposed from Moscow (again, it wasn't the church, but the government,
that was really foreign). And the fact that the Pope at the time was a Pole made the Church more, not less, hostile, to the Communist
governments of Eastern Europe.
After school, Navalny entered the law faculty of the Russian University of Peoples'
Friendship and, according to official figures, graduated in 1998. But could not have
graduated, according to Lina Kandakzhi, a teacher of radio journalism at the PFUR, who wrote
about this in her Twitter account. "This person Navalny did not graduate from the university:
he was expelled from the first year. He is a liar." This Twitter entry was re-signed by
Kandakzhi's attorney, Violetta Volkov, but the topic did not receive any resonance and the
teacher herself has refused to comment on this story.
My official inquiry at the PFUR does not receive a reply for about a month: they say
that they transferred it from one department to another; they ignore letters, promise to
clarify the information later by phone What is this? Whether it is negligence of employees or
deliberate reluctance to answer is unclear.
You cannot directly blame Navalny for lying, however: to buy a diploma for one
university, and then enter another higher education course at another was a scheme typical
for those years. Indeed, a year after the alleged graduation from the PFUR, Navalny became a
student in the fee paying Finance and Credit Faculty of the Government of the Russian
Federation Finance Academy, majoring in Securities and Exchange Business, and graduated in
2001.
"... By Servaas Storm, Senior Lecturer at Delft University of Technology, who works on macroeconomics, technological progress, income distribution & economic growth, finance, development and structural change, and climate change. Originally published at the Institute for New Economic Thinking website ..."
"... Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public spending and raising wages will change that. ..."
"... ceteris paribus ..."
"... simultaneously ..."
"... private households ..."
"... See original post for references ..."
"... This is the night of the expanding man I take one last drag as I approach the stand I cried when I wrote this song Sue me if I play too long This brother is free I'll be what I want to be ..."
by Yves Smith Yves here. This is a terrific takedown
of the loanable funds theory, on which a ton of bad policy rests.
By Servaas Storm, Senior Lecturer at Delft University of Technology, who works on macroeconomics, technological progress,
income distribution & economic growth, finance, development and structural change, and climate change. Originally published at the
Institute for New Economic Thinking website
Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public
spending and raising wages will change that.
Introduction
Nine years after the Great Financial Crisis, U.S. output growth has not returned to its pre-recession trend, even after interest
rates hit the 'zero lower bound' (ZLB) and the unconventional monetary policy arsenal of the Federal Reserve has been all but exhausted.
It is widely feared that this insipid recovery reflects a 'new normal', characterized by "secular stagnation" which set in already
well before the global banking crisis of 2008 (Summers 2013, 2015).
This 'new normal' is characterized not just by this slowdown of aggregate economic growth, but also by greater income and wealth
inequalities and a growing polarization of employment and earnings into high-skill, high-wage and low-skill, low-wage jobs -- at
the expense of middle-class jobs (Temin 2017; Storm 2017). The slow recovery, heightened job insecurity and economic anxiety have
fueled a groundswell of popular discontent with the political establishment and made voters captive to Donald Trump's siren song
promising jobs and growth (
Ferguson and Page 2017 ).
What are the causes of secular stagnation? What are the solutions to revive growth and get the U.S. economy out of the doldrums?
If we go by four of the papers
commissioned by the Institute for New Economic Thinking (INET) at its recent symposium to explore these questions, one headline
conclusion stands out: the secular stagnation is caused by a heavy overdose of savings (relative to investment), which is caused
by higher retirement savings due to declining population growth and an ageing labour force (Eggertson, Mehotra & Robbins 2017; Lu
& Teulings 2017; Eggertson, Lancastre and Summers 2017), higher income inequality (Rachel & Smith 2017), and an inflow of precautionary
Asian savings (Rachel & Smith 2017). All these savings end up as deposits, or 'loanable funds' (LF), in commercial banks. In earlier
times, so the argument goes, banks would successfully channel these 'loanable funds' into productive firm investment -- by lowering
the nominal interest rate and thus inducing additional demand for investment loans.
But this time is different: the glut in savings supply is so large that banks cannot get rid of all the loanable funds even when
they offer firms free loans -- that is, even after they reduce the interest rate to zero, firms are not willing to borrow more in
order to invest. The result is inadequate investment and a shortage of aggregate demand in the short run, which lead to long-term
stagnation as long as the savings-investment imbalance persists. Summers (2015) regards a "chronic excess of saving over investment"
as "the essence of secular stagnation". Monetary policymakers at the Federal Reserve are in a fix, because they cannot lower the
interest rate further as it is stuck at the ZLB. Hence, forces of demography and ageing, higher inequality and thrifty Chinese savers
are putting the U.S. economy on a slow-moving turtle -- and not much can be done, it seems, to halt the resulting secular stagnation.
This is clearly a depressing conclusion, but it is also wrong.
To see this, we have to understand why there is a misplaced focus on the market for loanable funds that ignores the role of fiscal
policy that is plainly in front of us. In other words, we need to step back from the trees of dated models and see the whole forest
of our economy.
The Market for Loanable Funds
In the papers mentioned, commercial banks must first mobilise savings in order to have the loanable funds (LF) to originate new
(investment) loans or credit. Banks are therefore intermediaries between "savers" (those who provide the LF-supply) and "investors"
(firms which demand the LF). Banks, in this narrative, do not create money themselves and hence cannot pre -finance investment
by new money. They only move it between savers and investors.
We apparently live in a non-monetary (corn) economy -- one that just exchanges a real good that everybody uses, like corn. Savings
(or LF-supply) are assumed to rise when the interest rate R goes up, whereas investment (or LF-demand) must decline when R increases.
This is the stuff of textbooks, as is illustrated by Greg Mankiw's (1997, p. 63) explanation:
In fact, saving and investment can be interpreted in terms of supply an demand. In this case, the 'good' is loanable funds,
and its 'price' is the interest rate. Saving is the supply of loans -- individuals lend their savings to investors, or they deposit
their saving in a bank that makes the loan for them. Investment is the demand for loanable funds -- investors borrow from the
public directly by selling bonds or indirectly by borrowing from banks. [ .] At the equilibrium interest rate, saving equals investment
and the supply of loans equals the demand.
But the loanable funds market also forms the heart of complicated dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) models, beloved
by 'freshwater' and 'saltwater' economists alike (Woodford 2010), as should be clear from the commissioned INET papers as well. Figure
1 illustrates the loanable funds market in this scheme. The upward-sloping curve tells us that savings (or LF-supply) goes up as
the interest rate R increases. The downward-sloping curve shows us that investment (or LF-demand) declines if the cost of capital
(R) goes up. In the initial situation, the LF-market clears at a positive interest rate R0 > 0. Savings equal investment, which implies
that LF-supply matches LF-demand, and in this -- happy -- equilibrium outcome, the economy can grow along some steady-state path.
To see how we can get secular stagnation in such a loanable-funds world, we introduce a shock, say, an ageing population (a demographic
imbalance), a rise in (extreme) inequality, or an Asian savings glut, due to which the savings schedule shifts down. Equilibrium
in the new situation should occur at R1 which is negative. But this can't happen because of the ZLB: the nominal interest cannot
decline below zero. Hence R is stuck at the ZLB and savings exceed investment, or LF-supply > LF-demand. This is a disequilibrium
outcome which involves an over-supply of savings (relative to investment), in turn leading to depressed growth.
Ever since Knut Wicksell's (1898) restatement of the doctrine, the loanable funds approach has exerted a surprisingly strong influence
upon some of the best minds in the profession. Its appeal lies in the fact that it can be presented in digestible form in a simple
diagram (as Figure 1), while its micro-economic logic matches the neoclassical belief in the 'virtue of thrift' and Max Weber's Protestant
Ethic, which emphasize austerity, savings (before spending!) and delayed gratification as the path to bliss.
The problem with this model is that it is wrong (see Lindner 2015;
Taylor 2016
). Wrong in its conceptualisation of banks (which are not just intermediaries pushing around existing money, but which can create
new money ex nihilo ), wrong in thinking that savings or LF-supply have anything to do with "loans" or "credit," wrong because
the empirical evidence in support of a "chronic excess of savings over investment" is weak or lacking, wrong in its utter neglect
of finance, financialization and financial markets, wrong in its assumption that the interest rate is some "market-clearing" price
(the interest rate, as all central bankers will acknowledge, is the principal instrument of monetary policy), and wrong in the assumption
that the two schedules -- the LF-supply curve and the LF-demand curve -- are independent of one another (they are not, as Keynes
already pointed out).
Figure 1: The Loanable Funds Market: A Savings Glut Causing Secular Stagnation
I wish to briefly elaborate these six points. I understand that each of these criticisms is known and I entertain little hope
that that any of this will make people reconsider their approach, analysis, diagnosis and conclusions. Nevertheless, it is important
that these criticisms are raised and not shoveled under the carpet. The problem of secular stagnation is simply too important to
be left mis-diagnosed.
First Problem: Loanable Funds Supply and Demand Are Not Independent Functions
Let me start with the point that the LF-supply and LF-demand curve are not two independent schedules. Figure 1 presents savings
and investment as functions of only the interest rate R, while keeping all other variables unchanged. The problem is that the
ceteris paribus assumption does not hold in this case. The reason is that savings and investment are both affected by, and at
the same time determined by, changes in income and (changes in) income distribution. To see how this works, let us assume that the
average propensity to save rises in response to the demographic imbalance and ageing. As a result, consumption and aggregate demand
go down. Rational firms, expecting future income to decline, will postpone or cancel planned investment projects and investment declines
(due to the negative income effect and for a given interest rate R0). This means that LF-demand curve in Figure 1 must shift downward
in response to the increased savings. The exact point was made by Keynes (1936, p. 179):
The classical theory of the rate of interest [the loanable funds theory] seems to suppose that, if the demand curve for capital
shifts or if the curve relating the rate of interest to the amounts saved out of a given income shifts or if both these curves
shift, the new rate of interest will be given by the point of intersection of the new positions of the two curves. But this is
a nonsense theory. For the assumption that income is constant is inconsistent with the assumption that these two curves can shift
independently of one another. If either of them shift, then, in general, income will change; with the result that the whole schematism
based on the assumption of a given income breaks down In truth, the classical theory has not been alive to the relevance of changes
in the level of income or to the possibility of the level of income being actually a function of the rate of the investment.
Let me try to illustrate this using Figure 2. Suppose there is an exogenous (unexplained) rise in the average propensity to save.
In reponse, the LF-supply curve shifts down, but because (expected) income declines, the LF-demand schedule shifts downward as well.
The outcome could well be that there is no change in equilibrium savings and equilibrium investment. The only change is that the
'natural' interest is now R1 and equal to the ZLB. Figure 2 is, in fact, consistent with the empirical analysis (and their Figure
of global savings and investment) of Rachel & Smith. Let me be clear: Figure 2 is not intended to suggest that the loanable funds
market is useful and theoretically correct. The point I am trying to make is that income changes and autonomous demand changes are
much bigger drivers of both investment and saving decisions than the interest rate. Market clearing happens here -- as Keynes was
arguing -- because the level of economic activity and income adjust, not because of interest-rate adjustment.
Figure 2: The Loanable Funds Market: Shifts in Both Schedules
Second Problem: Savings Do Not Fund Investment, Credit Does
The loanable funds doctrine wrongly assumes that commercial bank lending is constrained by the prior availability of loanable
funds or savings. The simple point in response is that, in real life, modern banks are not just intermediaries between 'savers' and
'investors', pushing around already-existing money, but are money creating institutions. Banks create new money ex nihilo
, i.e. without prior mobilisation of savings. This is illustrated by Werner's (2014) case study of the money creation process
by one individual commercial bank. What this means is that banks do pre-finance investment, as was noted by Schumpeter early
on and later by Keynes (1939), Kaldor (1989), Kalecki, and numerous other economists. It is for this reason that Joseph Schumpeter
(1934, p. 74) called the money-creating banker 'the ephor of the exchange economy' -- someone who by creating credit ( ex nihilo
) is pre-financing new investments and innovation and enables "the carrying out of new combinations, authorizes people, in the
name of society as it were, to form them." Nicholas Kaldor (1989, p. 179) hit the nail on its head when he wrote that "[C]redit money
has no 'supply function' in the production sense (since its costs of production are insignificant if not actually zero); it comes
into existence as a result of bank lending and is extinguished through the repayment of bank loans. At any one time the volume of
bank lending or its rate of expansion is limited only by the availability of credit-worthy borrowers." Kaldor had earlier expressed
his views on the endogeneity of money in his evidence to the Radcliffe Committee on the Workings of the Monetary System, whose report
(1959) was strongly influenced by Kaldor's argumentation. Or take Lord Adair Turner (2016, pp. 57) to whom the loanable-funds approach
is 98% fictional, as he writes:
Read an undergraduate textbook of economics, or advanced academic papers on financial intermediation, and if they describe
banks at all, it is usually as follows: "banks take deposits from households and lend money to businesses, allocating capital
between alternative capital investment possibilities." But as a description of what modern banks do, this account is largely fictional,
and it fails to capture their essential role and implications. [ ] Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. [ ]
The vast majority of what we count as "money' in modern economies is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money
takes this form .
We therefore don't need savings to make possible investment -- or, in contrast to the Protestant Ethic, banks allow us to have
'gratification' even if we have not been 'thrifty' and austere, as long as there are slack resources in the economy.
It is by no means a secret that commercial banks create new money. As the Bank of England (2007) writes, "When bank make loans
they create additional deposits for those that have borrowed" (Berry et al. 2007, p. 377). Or consider the following statement
from the Deutsche Bundesbank (2009): "The commercial banks can create money themselves ." Across the board, central bank economists,
including economists working at the Bank for International Settlements (Borio and Disyatat 2011), have rejected the loanable funds
model as a wrong description of how the financial system actually works (see McLeay et al . 2014a, 2014b; Jakab and Kumhof
2015). And the Deutsche Bundesbank (2017) leaves no doubt as to how the banking system works and money is created in actually-existing
capitalism, stating that the ability of banks to originate loans does not depend on the prior availability of saving deposits. Bank
of England economists Zoltan Jakab and Michael Kumhoff (2015) reject the loanable-funds approach in favour of a model with money-creating
banks. In their model (as in reality), banks pre-finance investment; investment creates incomes; people save out of their incomes;
and at the end of the day, ex-post savings equal investment. This is what Jakab and Kumhoff (2015) conclude:
" . if the loan is for physical investment purposes, this new lending and money is what triggers investment and therefore,
by the national accounts identity of saving and investment (for closed economies), saving. Saving is therefore a consequence,
not a cause, of such lending. Saving does not finance investment, financing does. To argue otherwise confuses the respective macroeconomic
roles of resources (saving) and debt-based money (financing)."
Savings are a consequence of credit-financed investment (rather than a prior condition) -- and we cannot draw
a savings-investment cross as in Figure 1, as if the two curves are independent. They are not. There exists therefore no
'loanable funds market' in which scarce savings constrain (through interest rate adjustments) the demand for investment loans. Highlighting
the loanable funds fallacy, Keynes wrote in "The Process of Capital Formation" (1939):
"Increased investment will always be accompanied by increased saving, but it can never be preceded by it. Dishoarding and credit
expansion provides not an alternative to increased saving, but a necessary preparation for it. It is the parent, not the twin,
of increased saving."
This makes it all the more remarkable that some of the authors of the commissioned conference papers continue to frame their analysis
in terms of the discredited loanable funds market which wrongly assumes that savings have an existence of their own -- separate from
investment, the level of economic activity and the distribution of incomes.
Third Problem: The Interest Rate Is a Monetary Policy Instrument, Not a Market-Clearing Price
In loanable funds theory, the interest rate is a market price, determined by LF-supply and LF-demand (as in Figure 1). In reality,
central bankers use the interest rate as their principal policy instrument (Storm and Naastepad 2012). It takes effort and a considerable
amount of sophistry to match the loanable funds theory and the usage of the interest rate as a policy instrument. However, once one
acknowledges the empirical fact that commercial banks create money ex nihilo , which means money supply is endogenous, the
model of an interest-rate clearing loanable funds market becomes untenable. Or as Bank of England economists Jakab and Kumhof (2015)
argue:
modern central banks target interest rates, and are committed to supplying as many reserves (and cash) as banks demand at that
rate, in order to safeguard financial stability. The quantity of reserves is therefore a consequence, not a cause, of lending
and money creation. This view concerning central bank reserves [ ] has been repeatedly described in publications of the world's
leading central banks.
What this means is that the interest rate may well be at the ZLB, but this is not caused by a savings glut in the loanable funds
market, but the result of a deliberate policy decision by the Federal Reserve -- in an attempt to revive sluggish demand in a context
of stagnation, subdued wage growth, weak or no inflation, substantial hidden un- and underemployment, and actual recorded unemployment
being (much) higher than the NAIRU (see Storm and Naastepad 2012). Seen this way, the savings glut is the symptom (or
consequence ) of an aggregate demand shortage which has its roots in the permanent suppression of wage growth (relative
to labour productivity growth), the falling share of wages in income, the rising inequalities of income and wealth (Taylor 2017)
as well as the financialization of corporations (Lazonick 2017) and the economy as a whole (Storm 2018). It is not the cause of the
secular stagnation -- unlike in the loanable funds models.
Fourth Problem: The Manifest Absence of Finance and Financial Markets
What the various commissioned conference papers do not acknowledge is that the increase in savings (mostly due to heightened inequality
and financialization) is not channeled into higher real-economy investment, but is actually channeled into more lucrative financial
(derivative) markets. Big corporations like Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are holding enormous amounts of liquidity and IMF economists
have documented the growth of global institutional cash pools, now worth $5 to 6 trillion and managed by asset or money managers
in the shadow banking system (Pozsar 2011; Pozsar and Singh 2011; Pozsar 2015). Today's global economy is suffering from an unprecedented
"liquidity preference" -- with the cash safely "parked" in short-term (over-collateralized lending deals in the repo-market. The
liquidity is used to earn a quick buck in all kinds of OTC derivatives trading, including forex swaps, options and interest rate
swaps. The global savings glut is the same thing as the global overabundance of liquidity (partying around in financial markets)
and also the same thing as the global demand shortage -- that is: the lack of investment in real economic activity, R&D and innovation.
The low interest rate is important in this context, because it has dramatically lowered the opportunity cost of holding cash --
thus encouraging (financial) firms, the rentiers and the super-rich to hold on to their liquidity and make (quick and relatively
safe and high) returns in financial markets and exotic financial instruments. Added to this, we have to acknowledge the fact that
highly-leveraged firms are paying out most of their profits to shareholders as dividends or using it to buy back shares (Lazonick
2017). This has turned out to be damaging to real investment and innovation, and it has added further fuel to financialization (Epstein
2018; Storm 2018). If anything, firms have stopped using their savings (or retained profits) to finance their investments which are
now financed by bank loans and higher leverage. If we acknowledge these roles of finance and financial markets, then we can begin
to understand why investment is depressed and why there is an aggregate demand shortage. More than two decades of financial deregulation
have created a rentiers' delight, a capitalism without 'compulsions' on financial investors, banks, and the property-owning class
which in practice has led to 'capitalism for the 99%' and 'socialism for the 1%' (Palma 2009; Epstein 2018) For authentic Keynesians,
this financialized system is the exact opposite of Keynes' advice to go for the euthanasia of the rentiers ( i.e. design
policies to reduce the excess liquidity).
Fifth Problem: Confusing Savings with "Loans," or Stocks with Flows
"I have found out what economics is,' Michał Kalecki once told Joan Robinson, "it is the science of confusing stocks with flows."
If anything, Kalecki's comment applies to the loanable funds model. In the loanable fund universe, as Mankiw writes and as most commissioned
conference papers argue, saving equals investment and the supply of loans equals the demand at some equilibrium interest rate. But
savings and investment are flow variables, whereas the supply of loans and the demand for loans are stock variables.
Simply equating these flows to the corresponding stocks is not considered good practice in stock-flow-consistent macro-economic modelling.
It is incongruous, because even if we assume that the interest rate does clear "the stock of loan supply" and "the stock of loan
demand", there is no reason why the same interest rate would simultaneously balance savings ( i.e. the increase
in loan supply) and investment ( i.e. the increase in loan demand). So what is the theoretical rationale of assuming that
some interest rate is clearing the loanable funds market (which is defined in terms of flows )?
To illustrate the difference between stocks and flows: the stock of U.S. loans equals around 350% of U.S. GDP (if one includes
debts of financial firms), while gross savings amount to 17% of U.S. GDP. Lance Taylor (2016) presents the basic macroeconomic flows
and stocks for the U.S. economy to show how and why loanable funds macro models do not fit the data -- by a big margin. No interest
rate adjustment mechanism is strong enough to bring about this (ex-post) balance in terms of flows , because the interest
rate determination is overwhelmed by changes in loan supply and demand stocks . What is more, and as stated before, we don't
actually use 'savings' to fund 'investment'. Firms do not use retained profits (or corporate savings) to finance their investment,
but in actual fact disgorge the cash to shareholders (Lazonick 2017). They finance their investment by bank loans (which is newly
minted money). Households use their (accumulated) savings to buy bonds in the secondary market or any other existing asset. In that
case, the savings do not go to funding new investment -- but are merely used to re-arrange the composition of the financial portfolio
of the savers.
Final Problem: The Evidence of a Chronic Excess of Savings Over Investment is Missing
If Summers claims that there is a "chronic excess of savings over investment," what he means is that ex-ante savings are larger
than ex-ante investment. This is a difficult proposition to empirically falsify, because we only have ex-post (national accounting)
data on savings and investment which presume the two variables are equal. However, what we can do is consider data on (global) gross
and net savings rates (as a proportion of GDP) to see if the propensity to save has increased. This is what Bofinger and Ries (2017)
did and they find that global saving rates of private households have declined dramatically since the 1980s. This means,
they write, that one can rule out 'excess savings' due to demographic factors (as per Eggertson, Mehotra & Robbins 2017;
Eggertsson, Lancastre & Summers 2017; Rachel & Smith 2017; and Lu & Teulings 2017). While the average saving propensity of household
has declined, the aggregate propensity to save has basically stayed the same during the period 1985-2014. This is shown in Figure
3 (reproduced from Bofinger and Reis 2017) which plots the ratio of global gross savings (or global gross investment) to GDP against
the world real interest rate during 1985-2014. A similar figure can be found in the paper by Rachel and Smith (2017). What can be
seen is that while there has been no secular rise in the average global propensity to save, there has been a secular decline in interest
rates. This drop in interest rates to the ZLB is not caused by a savings glut, nor by a financing glut, but is the outcome of the
deliberate decisions of central banks to lower the policy rate in the face of stagnating economies, put on a 'slow-moving turtle'
by a structural lack of aggregate demand which -- as argued by Storm and Naastepad (2012) and Storm (2017) -- is largely due to misconceived
macro and labour-market policies centered on suppressing wage growth, fiscal austerity, and labour market deregulation.
Saving/Investment Equilibria and World Real Interest Rate, 1985-2014 Source: Bofinger and Reis (2017), Figure
1(a).
To understand the mechanisms underlying Figure 3, let us consider Figure 4 which plots investment demand as a negative function
of the interest rate. In the 'old situation', investment demand is high at a (relatively) high rate of interest (R0); this corresponds
to the data points for the period 1985-1995 in Figure 3. But then misconceived macro and labour-market policies centered on suppressing
wage growth, fiscal austerity, and labour market deregulation began to depress aggregate demand and investment -- and as a result,
the investment demand schedule starts to shift down and to become more steeply downward-sloping at the same time. In response to
the growth slowdown (and weakening inflationary pressure), central banks reduce R -- but without any success in raising the gross
investment rate. This process continues until the interest rate hits the ZLB while investment has become practically interest-rate
insensitive, as investment is now overwhelmingly determined by pessimistic profit expectations; this is indicated by the new investment
schedule (in red). That the economy is now stuck at the ZLB is not caused by a "chronic excess of savings" but rather by a chronic
shortage of aggregate demand -- a shortage created by decades of wage growth moderation, labour market flexibilization, and heightened
job insecurity as well as the financialization of corporations and the economy at large (Storm 2018).
Figure 4: Secular Stagnation As a Crisis of Weak Investment Demand
Conclusions
The consensus in the literature and in the commissioned conference papers that the global decline in real interest rates is caused
by a higher propensity to save, above all due to demographic reasons, is wrong in terms of underlying theory and evidence base. The
decline in interest rates is the monetary policy response to stalling investment and growth, both caused by a shortage of global
demand. However, the low interest rates are unable to revive growth and halt the secular stagnation, because there is little reason
for firms to expand productive capacity in the face of the persistent aggregate demand shortage. Unless we revive demand, for example
through debt-financed fiscal stimulus or a drastic and permanent progressive redistribution of income and wealth in favour of lower-income
groups (Taylor 2017), there is no escape from secular stagnation. The narrow focus on the ZLB and powerless monetary policy within
the framing of a loanable-funds financial system blocks out serious macroeconomic policy debate on how to revive aggregate demand
in a sustainable manner. It will keep the U.S. economy on the slow-moving turtle -- not because policymakers cannot do anything about
it, but we choose to do so. The economic, social and political damage, fully self-inflicted, is going to be of historic proportions.
It is not a secret that the loanable funds approach is fallacious (Lindner 2015; Taylor 2016; Jakab and Kumhof 2015). While academic
economists continue to refine their Ptolemaic model of a loanable-funds market, central bank economists have moved on -- and are
now exploring the scope of and limitations to monetary policymaking in a monetary economy. Keynes famously wrote that "Practical
men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.
Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back." In
2017, things seem to happen the other way around: academic economists who believe themselves to be free thinkers are caught in the
stale theorizing of a century past. The puzzle is, as Lance Taylor (2016, p. 15) concludes "why [New Keynesian economists] revert
to Wicksell on loanable funds and the natural rate while ignoring Keynes's innovations. Maybe, as [Keynes] said in the preface to
the General Theory, "'The difficulty lies not in the new ideas, but in escaping from the old ones ..' (p. viii)"
Due to our inability to free ourselves from the discredited loanable funds doctrine, we have lost the forest for the trees. We
cannot see that the solution to the real problem underlying secular stagnation (a structural shortage of aggregate demand) is by
no means difficult: use fiscal policy -- a package of spending on infrastructure, green energy systems, public transportation and
public services, and progressive income taxation -- and raise (median) wages. The stagnation will soon be over, relegating all the
scholastic talk about the ZLB to the dustbin of a Christmas past.
"Forget the myth of a savings glut causing near-zero interest rates. We have a shortage of aggregate demand, and only public
spending and raising wages will change that."
But isn't "a savings glut" just the same as "a shortage of aggregate demand"? Or is Keynes so out of favor that this is outre
thinking?
The point is that the "saving glut" is caused bi unequal distribution of income, so it's a good thing that the "shortage of
aggregate demand" is stressed, but still it's just two names for the same thing.
In the end the "money creation" is needed because there is not a "money circulation", IMO.
Putting money into the broadest possible distribution and circulation is the key. It could be done with existing money through
taxation or with new money through the federal fiscal lever.
Given the "Tax Reform" just passed, odds on the first option look vanishingly long. The second option is what the elites do
whenever they want something, normally a war or tax cut. If they want a robust economy, eventually they will pull the fiscal lever.
Feudalism, however, may look better to our depraved current elite crop than any kind of broadly robust economy.
There was a link to an article yesterday called "I write because I hate" that described how incorrect and even dangerous metaphors
can be when it comes to understanding the world. Yours is a case in point.
But isn't "a savings glut" just the same as "a shortage of aggregate demand"
I'm not sure I entirely understand your complaint, but at a first glance a savings glut is one kind of demand shortage, but
not every kind of demand shortage can reasonably be called a savings glut. In one situation you have plenty of resource but no
use for it other than possible future use (savings glut -- you have everything you need so cease purchasing) and in another situation
you have insufficient resource (demand shortage -- you cease purchasing because you can't afford to purchase) but no savings glut.
You don't even have the resources you need for today, never mind saving for tomorrow.
Aye, that's exactly how I understand it, so it is not exactly a chicken-or-the-egg conflation to try to distinguish a savings
glut from a lack of demand.
You seem to have missed the point. The problem is wealth distribution. Mainstream economists don't distinguish who has the
savings in their simplistic models. When the rich already have a widget in every room of their mansion, they are not going to
buy more widgets no matter how low the price of widgets sink. And when the poor have no money, they will not be able to buy the
widgets no matter how much they want them. Demand is not just a function of price. To increase demand, we need a more equitable
form of wealth distribution.
One major difference, according to the author, is that the lack of aggregate demand exists, while the savings glut does not.
The fact of companies sitting on liquidity, is detached from investment, for which they borrow. That investment is lacking because
they do not see good investments, because of a lack of aggregate demand. if they did invest, it would not be constrained
by their 'savings'.
"But this time is different: the glut in savings supply is so large that banks cannot get rid of all the loanable funds even
when they offer firms free loans -- that is, even after they reduce the interest rate to zero, firms are not willing to borrow
more in order to invest."
That needs some explanation. Banks are not offering US businesses free money (excerpt briefly during the Crash). BBB bonds
yields are aprox 4.3% -- and most businesses cannot borrow at that rate (excerpt when posting collateral).
For comparison over long time horizons, the real (ex-CPI) BBB corporate bond rate is 2.5% to 3% -- in the middle of its range
from 1952-1980.
We have considered the political reasons for the opposition to the policy of creating employment by government spending.
But even if this opposition were overcome -- as it may well be under the pressure of the masses -- the maintenance of full
employment would cause social and political changes which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders.
Indeed, under a regime of permanent full employment, the 'sack' would cease to play its role as a 'disciplinary measure. The
social position of the boss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousness of the working class would
grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create political tension. It is true that profits
would be higher under a regime of full employment than they are on the average under laissez-faire, and even the rise in wage
rates resulting from the stronger bargaining power of the workers is less likely to reduce profits than to increase prices,
and thus adversely affects only the rentier interests. But 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' are more
appreciated than profits by business leaders. Their class instinct tells them that lasting full employment is unsound from
their point of view, and that unemployment is an integral part of the 'normal' capitalist system.
In other words, one potential reason for business to oppose any efforts at addressing the problem is that the people would
have more bargaining power. The elite are not after absolute wealth or power, but relative power over the rest of us.
Imagine for example if the alternative was passed say some form of social democracy with full employment and MMT policy.
This would undermine in their view their ability to dominate over the rest of us. Now they may arguably be richer (ex: we might
see more money for productive parts of society like say, disease research), but they are willing to give that up for dominating
us. That is what we are up against.
If what you say is true (re social democracy + MMT policies), how then to consider for even one second the further existence
of a business cadre dedicated to upending such an agreement? We always theorize as if an actual resistance to "our" policies will
melt away with the displacement of elite political control. I remember Chile and the "strikes" called to bring down Allende.
The innocence of our imaginations is not only disturbing, but dangerous. Once power is gained and capital has been put in its
place, the fight begins right there, anew. Unless we wish to fall into Stalinist methods of "resolution", consideration for alternate
methods of economic control, and an anticipation of backlash, are in demand if the "people" are to prevail.
In my experience as a union organizer and negotiator the opposition by many employers to unions is not particularily because
of money, but because of power and the erosion of the employer's grip of it by the collective action of workers. Many times in
my experience employers have spent a boatload more money on fighting workers and hiring union-busting attorneys than whatever
wage and benefit increase is being proposed. These employers are acting from their political self-interest rather than the narrow
economic self-interest that is commonly assumed.
Great comments -- the motivation behind the ideas is a need for power and control.
You can look at the first 20 years of the Cold War as a domestic experiment in social control: incomes were allowed to rise
for most people, and inequality was moderated in the interest of politically consolidating the country to support arming and fighting
the war.
By the early 70s our handlers -- as shown in the Powell Memo, say -- had tired of the experiment. With more income, free time,
and education, women, students, non-white people, and the newly prosperous working class were entering into contention on every
terrain imaginable -- and that had to reduced to a manageable level. So they "leaned-out the mix", reduced income for most people,
and bumped up the level of indebtedness and indoctrination.
Now the fuel-air mix is so lean that the engine is starting to miss (for example, the Trump election and the Sanders challenge
to the Dem elite). But it looks like they have no other idea but to double-down on austerity. I guess they assume they can maintain
global financial and military hegemony on the backs of a sick, unfit, indebted, and politically fractious population -- an iffy
proposition. No wonder they seem desperate.
The Trump/Republican tax law tells us (if we needed another message) that the link between economic policy and economic theory
is so weak as the bring into question the point of theorizing in the first place, apart, of course, from convincing (semi)-smart
but fearful people to remain timid in the face of powerful lunacy. Government spending to replace worn out capital, to satisfy
basic material needs of the population, and to underwrite investment in an environmental and educational future worth creating
is, OBVIOUSLY, a no-no to Wall Street, war profiteers, and the large population of yes-men and women who promote fear among the
middle class. We should spend less time contesting economic thinking that is nonsense. Instead why not spend time proposing and
explaining fairly obvious fiscal strategies that will promote a better society, as well as the time that will be needed to defend
these life-affirming proposals against the scholastic nonsense that our saltwater and freshwater scaredy-cat friends will put
out every day to explain why what we propose will wreck Civilization. Let's go on the offense for a change.
precisely, but for the forementioned scholastic nonsense of our salty and fresh feline friends, one would need a salient and
orchestrated defense, as to why such meddling with traditional economic trajectories, will mean that: by foregoing my 'short sided
2018 increase in my personal deduction', will I actually allow myself to feel benign about the sagging state of civilization,
that those 'cats of all breeds', have so eloquently perpetuated upon a 'generation of our peers'.
calling 'message central', the 'greater good awaits'. Yes
I still can't get my head around the fact that these models can persist in the economics literature whilst everyone knows they
are based on flawed assumptions. In science these would quickly end up as part of some distant history. Someone would publish
another model, and slowly everyone would start working with it if it had strong explanatory power. Imagine the grief that climate
modellers would get if theirs models were so poorly grounded.
Thank you for this post. It was as good as Michael Hudson and all the clear thinkers you post for us. Since we got rid of Greenspan
(who admitted that interest rates had no effect on the economy but still freaked out about inflaltion), Bernanke and then Yellen
have had better instincts – not straightforward, but better. If central banks know the loanable funds theory to be nonsense, the
battle is mostly won. MMT will be the logical next step. Public spending/infrastructure is just good grassroots policy that serve
everyone. Even dithering goofballs like Larry Summers. And, as implied above, public spending takes care of the always ignored
problem of private debt levels which suck productive spending and investment out of the economy, because unemployment. It's hard
to believe that academics have been so wrong-headed for so long without any evidence for their claims. Steve Keen's premise, that
these academics ignore both the existence of private debt and the importance of dwindling energy sources is also addressed above.
Storm's point – also made by both old hands and new MMT – that there is not a problem with inflation (too much) if there are slack
resources seems to have morphed into an ossified rule whereby some inflexible academics see slack resources as scarce resources.
What is slack is always a political definition. What is slack today is a filthy environment; there is a great surplus of it. Enormously
slack. That's the good news.
Globalization is a disaster wherever you care to look.
Big corporations like Alphabet, Facebook and Microsoft are holding enormous amounts of liquidity . . .
A better example is Apple, with it's roughly 1/4 trillion dollar cash hoard, beaten out of their Chinese work force in collusion
of the Chinese elite. With wages crushed here and there, because they don't want to pay anyone anything anywhere, where will demand
come from? The Chinese peasant slaving away on an Apple farm has a few square feet of living space, like a broiler chicken in
a Tyson cage so where is she going to put the new furniture she can't afford?
Banks create credit, money, and thus purchasing power. [ ] The vast majority of what we count as "money' in modern economies
is created in this fashion: in the United Kingdom 98% of money takes this form .
The banks are the MMT practicing intermediary between the federal government and the peasants.
So much goodness, don't know where to start. It's a long post. It's my day (singular) off. I'm going long. Deacon Blues* applies.
This:
Ever since Knut Wicksell's (1898) restatement of the doctrine, the loanable funds approach has exerted a surprisingly strong
influence upon some of the best minds in the profession. Its appeal lies in the fact that it can be presented in digestible
form in a simple diagram (as Figure 1), while its micro-economic logic matches the neoclassical belief in the 'virtue of thrift'
and Max Weber's Protestant Ethic, which emphasize austerity, savings (before spending!) and delayed gratification as the path
to bliss.
Now we're talking. This puts the doctrine in the context of its parent beliefs.
The way I see it, beliefs:economics as operating system:application as mythology:religion. So shorter Storm: The LFF is a BS
application for a BS OS.
Been dawning on me lately how neoliberalism is the spawn of a degenerate parent belief system, too. I was even thinking of
Weber just the other day.
By speaking in apparently objective, pragmatic, "realistic" terms, public figures are notorious for "dog-whistling" their occult
beliefs in terms their congregations hear loud and clear. When Her Royal Clinton's even more notoriously damned to hell half the
population as "deplorables," she tipped her hand. The obscure term, ephors, is very instructive here.
To refesh the readers memory, "Schumpeter (1934, p. 74) called the money-creating banker 'the ephor of the exchange economy'
-- someone who by creating credit (ex nihilo) is pre-financing new investments and innovation and enables "the carrying out of
new combinations, authorizes people, in the name of society as it were, to form them."
Not so fast, though. Who were the original ephors?
Herodotus claimed that the institution was created by Lycurgus, while Plutarch considers it a later institution. It may
have arisen from the need for governors while the kings were leading armies in battle. The ephors were elected by the popular
assembly, and all citizens were eligible for election. They were forbidden to be reelected. They provided a balance for the
two kings, who rarely cooperated with each other. Plato called them tyrants who ran Sparta as despots, while the kings were
little more than generals. Up to two ephors would accompany a king on extended military campaigns as a sign of control, and
they held the authority to declare war during some periods in Spartan history.[2]
According to Plutarch,[3] every autumn, at the crypteia, the ephors would pro forma declare war on the helot population
so that any Spartan citizen could kill a helot without fear of blood guilt.[4] This was done to keep the large helot population
in check.
The ephors did not have to kneel down before the Kings of Sparta and were held in high esteem by the citizens, because of
the importance of their powers and because of the holy role they earned throughout their functions.
Ain't that something. We don't call it "class war" for nothing. More on the crypteia:
The Crypteia or Krypteia (Greek: κρυπτεία krupteía from κρυπτός kruptós, "hidden, secret things") was an ancient Spartan
state institution involving young Spartan men. Its goal and nature are still a matter of discussion and debate among historians,
but some scholars (Wallon) consider the Krypteia to be a kind of secret police and state security force organized by the ruling
classes of Sparta, whose purpose was to terrorize the servile helot population. Others (Köchly, Wachsmuth) believe it to be
a form of military training, similar to the Athenian ephebia.
So Schumpeter's metaphor is way too apt for comfort. Gets right under my skin.
For a modern equivalent of the pro forma declaration of civil war, I'm thinking "election cycle." Hippie-punching and
all that goes a long way back, eh?
Let's cut to the chase: what's all this talk of econ as religion telling us? ISTM arguing with neoliberals as they frame the
debate is like arguing with theologians in their terms. My learning psych professor, Robert Bolles, regarding the dismantling
of ascendant BS models, always said, you don't take down an enormous tree leaf by leaf, you go where it meets the ground. Where
does neoliberalism meet the ground? And its parent belief system?
Neoliberalism is so poorly grounded, it's shorting out all over the place. This could be easier than it looks. Storm's argument
is compelling (at least to this newbie). What are its other weakest links? (Not being rhetorical here. I really don't know. A
little help?)
Speaking of Weber, one of the major factors in the Reformation was the utter failure of the Catholic church to be able to produce
a valid calendar
. The trouble is of course, in their mythos, you have to perform the proper rituals at the proper time and often in the proper
place, or you will fry in hell forever and ever amen.
Obviously, then, the calculation of the equinox assumed considerable and understandable importance. If the equinox was wrong,
then Easter was celebrated on the wrong day and the placement of most of the other observances -- such as the starts of Lent
and Pentecost -- would also be in error.
As the Julian calendar was far from perfect, errors did indeed begin to creep into the keeping of time. Because of the inherent
imprecision of the calendar, the calculated year was too long by 11 minutes and 14 seconds. The problem only grew worse with
each passing year as the equinox slipped backwards one full day on the calendar every 130 years. For example, at the time of
its introduction, the Julian calendar placed the equinox on March 25. By the time of the Council of Nicea in 325, the equinox
had fallen back to March 21. By 1500, the equinox had shifted by 10 days.
The 10 days were of increasing importance also to navigation and agriculture, causing severe problems for sailors, merchants,
and farmers whose livelihood depended upon precise measurements of time and the seasons. At the same time, throughout the Middle
Ages, the use of the Julian calendar brought with it many local variations and peculiarities that are the constant source of
frustration to historians. For example, many medieval ecclesiastical records, financial transactions, and the counting of dates
from the feast days of saints did not adhere to the standard Julian calendar but reflected local adjustments. Not surprisingly,
confusion was the result.
The Church Saves Time
[Doncha just love that succinct bit of myth-making? smh]
The Church was aware of the inaccuracy, and by the end of the 15th century there was widespread agreement among Church leaders
that not celebrating Easter on the right day -- the most important and most solemn event on the calendar -- was a scandal.
A functioning mythology tells one how to be human right now. The Catholic church couldn't even tell people what date it was,
putting not just ephemeral souls in peril should one die, even more of a daily dread in those days, but lives and property were
increasingly at risk.
ISTM we're in an analogous situation. Our two high holies, Wall Street and Washington, DC, are increasingly irrelevant to us
helots. They're of no use to us in ordering our daily lives. In fact, they've becoming openly hostile, dropping any pretense of
governing for the common good, and I'm not referring only to Trump, eg, whatever happened to habeas corpus ? "If you like
your health plan, you can keep it." The betrayals come fast and furious, too fast to keep up.
Others are rejecting science. A schism here, a schism there, pretty soon it all cracks up one day "outta nowhere." And I do
mean "one day."
Moving right along, let's look at "the virtue of thrift."
In the formative years of United States history, prominent thinkers such as Ben Franklin promoted a "thrift ethic" that
encouraged hard work, frugal spending on self and generous giving to charity, he asserted, maintaining "thrift" was simply
the secular term for the religious stewardship principle . And institutions developed to support that ethic, he noted.
That's what I'm saying: secular institutions are the operationalizations, the applications, of belief systems, and further,
we can study them instead of just saying "religion = bad = no further analysis required" and then dismissing it all out of hand.
As with LF-supply and LF-demand, secular and sectarian are not the independent variables they're made out to be, as argued
so well by Cook & Ferguson right here on NC in The
Real Economic Consequences of Martin Luther , eg, "[Henry VIII] did not abolish the papacy so much as take the pope's place."
Same goes for today, IMNSHO: Our "secular" leaders are sectarian high priests in mufti.
The Baptist article also goes on to say what the flock people should do: ignore Wall St. and DC. Unsuprisingly, it's also chock
full of punching downwards and victim-blaming. Payday lending and lotteries are to blame, they say. People just need to be more
thrifty , which apparently means, impoverish yourself for the betterment of your betters. Or else.
When HRC damned half of us to Hell, she was dog-whistling loud and clear in a tradition going at least as far back as the wars
of the ephors on the helots. When the high priests of our high holy temples of finance tell us we need more austerity, although
they speak in terms apparently objective and especially dispassionate, it's nothing but the failed preachings of the failed priests
of a failed church.
Looked at as comparative mythology, and speaking empirically as well (much obliged to the present author and our hosts, sincerely)
neoliberalism is no way of being human.
Sure, us nerds get that. But wonky discussions don't move people. The execrable Mario Cuomo is credited with saying, "You campaign
in poetry, you govern in prose," and I think it's profoundly true. Telling my friends we've debunked the Loanable Funds Fallacy
will get me nowhere.
Oy vey. The immense satisfaction I had been feeling, of seeing through neoliberalism all the way to its core, sure was short
lived. Now I need to know what MMT says about being human. This is what happens when you start thinking in words, you know. It
never ends!
I've heard Steve Keen's writing won't be much help in popularizing MMT in time. Who's a witty MMTer? Who can express its way
of being human in one-liners? Who's punchy?
(Administrivia: "Suppose there is an exogenous (unexplained) *rise* in the average propensity to save. In reponse, the LF-supply
curve shifts down ." Shouldn't that be "drop"?)
* This is the night of the expanding man
I take one last drag as I approach the stand
I cried when I wrote this song
Sue me if I play too long
This brother is free
I'll be what I want to be
Very interesting rant, Knowbuddhau. Imo all we have to do is get over gold. It made sense before the days of sovereign fiat
that you saved your coins before you spent them. How else? But fiat is the essential spirit of money while gold was/is a craze.
And the Neoliberals are unenlightened just like the Neocons against whom they pretend to react. But they are reactionaries regardless.
That's their problem. All reaction, no action. When Storm refers to Kalecki above saying the original sin of economics was confusing
stocks with flows, I take it to mean confusing fiat with gold in a sense. Once upon a time a store of value (a pouch full of gold
coins) was the same thing as a medium of exchange. Not any more. Fiat is the only mechanism, spent in advance to promote social
well being, that can create an "economy" in this world of zillions of people.
Isn't a bit of an irony that the academic papers being debunked here were commissioned by the Institute for *New* Economic
Thinking ? Sad to see its also been corrupted by the neoliberal virus (political Ebola).
The author writes about the fuctional LF paradigm: "Banks, in this narrative, do not create money themselves and hence cannot
pre -finance investment by new money. They only move it between savers and investors." -- Note that that narrative doesn't
even make sense *within* the loanable-funds model, because with fractional reserve banking, even if banks were required to loan
against pre-existing deposits, they could amplify each dollar of same into multiple units of newly-created credit money. The fact
that what really happens goes even further and entirely omits the need for pre-existing funds from the banks' monetary legerdemain
is the reason for my pet term for the "loans create deposits" reality: "fictional reserve banking."
Aggregate demand increases investment only to the extant that it increases profitable opportunities. If costs remain constant,
then obviously an increase in demand increases profitability. But an increase in wages doesn't merely increase aggregate demand,
it also increases aggregate costs because that's what a wage is to a firm. If aggregate wages were boosted by $1 trillion, consumption
will be boosted by less than 100% of that (workers will save some of their increased income) while firms will have to pay the
full $1 trillion in increased wages if they are to employ the workers. So how is increasing wages supposed to increase profitability
and investment? It seems like it would do the opposite.
We really need to look more at profit. The aggregate profit rate is determined by the cost of the total capital employed in
relation to the output. If the costs rise faster than productivity growth, then profitability falls. How do aggregate costs rise?
By capital accumulation, by an increase in savings and investment. Thus, it would seem that stagnation can only be reached if
too much capital has been accumulated without a corresponding increase in productivity. This hypothesis doesn't rely on the loanable
funds theory (it doesn't matter whether the money exists before it is spent), but it is more similar to the savings glut explanation
because it is the accumulation of capital that leads to the fall in profitability. The suppression of wages is an effect, an attempt
to create profitable opportunities when there are none.
Your model is correct when you limit yourself to the variables in your model. Real life economies are complex, dynamic interactions
of many variables. At different times some variable become more important than others.
I think your variable, capital accumulation, is itself a complicated mix of many variables. Sometimes the cost of "capital
accumulation" may be controlling, and sometimes not. It also depends on which variables within capital accumulation are having
the most impact.
I think one of the major problems of the theory of supply and demand is that it may be true as a static model (all other things
being equal), but the economy (and life) are not static. Unless you can take dynamic effects into account, then this static or
even quasi-static model will just not represent what actually happens. This is just another way of saying what this article says.
Over time, the supply curve and the demand curve interact. There is hardly, if any, point in time when all other things aren't
changing.
In my world of simulating the behavior of integrated circuits, the problem involves non-linear differential equations, not
just non-linear algebraic equations.
Here is another problem. " by the national accounts[,] identity of saving and investment (for closed economies),"
Accounting is also a static snapshot of a dynamic system. A bank creates a loan payable in let's say 30 years. The spending
occurs immediately. In accounting terms these two items balance. However, on impact on the economy, they do not balance. Why else
would capitalism have noticed the value of buy now, pay later?
This is no longer a chicken and egg problem of which came first, the chicken or the egg. In real life, there are lots of chickens
and lots of eggs. Which came first is irrelevant. Chickens create eggs and eggs create chickens.
Models are a simplification of reality. They apply best when the things that were simplified away don't matter much. They fail
when the things that were simplified away become important. So, when does the loanable funds model apply?
IMHO, the loanable funds model applies when there is a run on the bank. When the fractional reserve banking system is running
smoothly, the loanable funds model is irrelevant. That's why banks have reserves and monetary systems have central reserve banks.
These reserve systems let us ignore loanable funds models.
As reported by the permanent representative of the International Monetary Fund in the
Ukraine, Jost Longman, the Kiev authorities should increase Ukrainian gas tariffs to the level
of import parity. Longman argues that an increase in gas prices will have a positive effect on
the development of the free market and will teach the Ukrainians to use natural gas
economically. "In the end, the final goal is the implementation of a free gas market. On the
way to this, it is important to continue to adjust the price of gas in accordance with the
price of imports", said Longman. "One price for all types of consumer also eliminates the space
for corruptio," he added.
On 20 Dec., a court in Slovakia stopped gas supplies to "Naftogaz of Ukraine". The
decision was made pursuant to the decision of the Stockholm arbitration over a claim made by
the Italian company IUGas that its Ukrainian consumer owed it money.
The total amount of the claim, including interest and penalties, is approximately $21
million. An arbitration ruling was accepted on 19 December 2012 and relates to unpaid 2007
transactions .
Under international law, if the defendant has not fulfilled the resolution of the
arbitration, the plaintiff may apply to the courts of other states with a request that the
ruling be executed.
"Naftogaz of Ukraine" is analyzing the situation to determine its next steps, according
to the Ukrainian edition "Mirror of the Week".
For 11 months of 2017, "Naftogaz of Ukraine" had bought in Eastern Europe 20.9 billion
cubic metres of gas. Most of the supplies -- more than 8 billion cubic metres -- are in
Slovakia.
As written in iz.ru, arbitration is under consideration in Stockholm as regards the
lawsuit made by "Gazprom" against "Naftogaz", the decision on which will be issued by the court
no later than February next year. The adjusted amount of the claims made by the Russian company
was more than $ 37 billion.
All this is the Aggressor State's doing!
For the sake of freedom and democracy, the Ukraine must be supported!
Gazprom has responded to Naftogaz's statements about victory in court
The Stockholm arbitration has satisfied most of Gazprom's claims made against Naftogaz
Ukraine regarding payment for supplied gas, the company has said in a statement. In Moscow.
They stressed that the main demands of the Ukrainian side by the court had been
rejected.
The court did not recognize the right of Naftogaz to review the price of gas, the
deliveries of which were carried out from May 2011 to April 2014. Also, the Ukrainian side
was denied recovery of overpayment. Gazprom noted that the court found it necessary to apply
the "take or pay" principle (annual payment of a minimum amount of gas) before the expiry of
the contract.
"Naftogaz" has to pay back $2 billion in arrears and interest for late payment to
Gazprom. The Ukrainian side is also obliged from next year to take 5 billion cubic metres
from Russia annually.
Earlier on Friday, Naftogaz said that the court had awarded the victory to the
Ukrainian side. In Kiev, they stressed that Gazprom's "take-or-pay" requirements had been
"completely" rejected by the court, and the gas price for the second quarter of 2014 had been
lowered to $ 352 per thousand cubic metres.
The court considered contracts for the supply of gas from Russia to the Ukraine, as
well as gas transit through the Ukraine. They were signed back in 2009. The Ukraine, insisted
"Gazprom", did not get any gas 2012-2014, and also in individual quarters of 2015 and 2016.
"Naftogaz" asked the court to review the gas prices, and that overpayment be reimbursed and
that the ban on further resale of gas be cancelled.
Kremlin propaganda from a "Kremlin controlled" newspaper?
"Naftogaz won the gas sales arbitration case against Gazprom on all issues in dispute,"
Naftogaz said in an emailed statement.
It said the ruling was worth around $75 billion to Naftogaz in the long term, but
did not give a breakdown on how it reached the estimate. [My stress -- ME]
Meanwhile Gazprom said the court had satisfied most of Gazprom's claims and ruled that
the main terms of the contract between Naftogaz and Gazprom were valid.
Gazprom said the Stockholm court had ordered Naftogaz to pay more than $2 billion to
Gazprom for gas supply arrears and that it had also ordered Naftogaz to buy 5 bcm of gas from
Gazprom annually from 2018.
Estimated $75 billion in the "long term"?
Have to pay $2 billion to Gazprom in arrears now (not mention interest).
From 2018 (i.e. in just over a week's time) have to buy annually 5 bcm of gas off the
"aggressor state".
Of course; that's what Klimkin told them. Why should they check? Klimkin is always reliable,
and I'm sure he tweeted a press statement directly to them. Let them hold a Naftogaz victory
party if that's what they feel like doing. Just don't spend Russia's money on it. Because I
notice Ukraine has to pay Russia. I did not see anything in there about Russia having to pay
Ukraine. And so Ukraine can have all of that kind of victories it wants.
Ultimately, the court greatly reduced the amount of gas that Ukraine is contractually
obligated to buy from Russia. From 2018, "Naftogaz" should annually take and pay for up to 5
billion cubic metres instead of the original 52 billion cubic metres in any case it means the
resumption of gas purchases in Russia, which stopped in 2015, since when "Naftogaz" has been
buying all its fuel through reverse flow from Europe.
Investors should "think twice" about putting money into Nord Stream 2 due to
"uncertainties" around the Russian pipeline, the EU energy commissioner told
EUobserver.
"I would really think twice, or many more times, simply because there are a lot of
uncertainties," Maros Sefcovic said in an interview.
"It's the decision of the project promoters if they want to proceed in this atmosphere
which might lead to legal disputes down the line," he said
"Nord Stream 2 is supported by five major western European energy companies that have
each committed up to almost €1 billion to the implementation of the pipeline," the
consortium's Sebastian Sass said.
"It shows that there is both market demand and great confidence in Nord Stream 2," he
added.
Stefan Meister, an expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations, a think tank in
Berlin, also said Russia had little to worry about from the EU.
"In Germany the overall impression is, that the project will come Merkel is not against
it. That means she supports it," he said.
Meister said the fact Gazprom was prepared to dig into its own pockets meant "the
investment risks are limited". He added that energy companies were used to working "in an
even more risky environment" in other parts of the world.
"Except the US sanctions, there are no real risks to stop the project," he said
####
Plenty more of Sefcovic blowing hot air out of every orifice at the link. Did someone slip
him some cocaine instead of sugar in his coffee before the interview? All mouth and no
trousers.
Congress ordered the Trump administration to submit a roster of Russians tied closely to
the Kremlin. Used wisely, it can be a powerful tool.
By ANDERS ÅSLUND AND DANIEL FRIED 12/18/17, 12:51 PM CET Updated 12/19/17, 1:31 PM
CET
Congress hit a nerve in Moscow last summer when it passed (and President Donald Trump
signed) H.R. 3364, the "Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act." Beyond the
law's many sanctions, its Section 241 requires the administration to submit to Congress a
detailed report identifying "the most significant senior foreign political figures and
oligarchs in the Russian Federation, as determined by their closeness to the Russian regime
and their net worth" within 180 days.
Ahhhhh .that was as satisfying as a thick chicken stew with floury dumplings. Speaking of
cooking, if you wanted to make "Aaaagghhh!! How the fuck did this go so wrong ????",
you would have to start with a double heaping measure of Anders Aslund. He probably puts on
his wife's shoes in the morning, his getting absolutely everything wrong probably goes that
far.
And the western 'analysis' community never says "Hey – you remember what
happened the last time we listened to this dickhead?" Never. He gets a free pass for
more of his drive-by derangement. And mark my words – this will end in tears. And not
for Russia.
The United States, confronted by a brush fire, seems to think that pouring
gasoline on will quench it. But you have to laugh with delight to see Uncle Sam thump his
chest and scream like a gorilla. The USA is so caught up in its own self-importance that it
seems to actually believe revoking Russia's club pass is going to make it collapse with
grief. Big fucking deal.
What is most likely to happen is that wealthy Russian international
businessmen will repatriate their wealth or reinvest it in countries where they are confident
the US government cannot reach and freeze it. And the day is fast approaching when US allies,
who see themselves ordered about like schoolchildren in a manner which puts them at maximum
risk while serving exclusively American interests, will simply ignore US ultimatums. And what
will they say then?
"Aaaagghhh!! How the fuck did this go so wrong ???"
Have a look at the War Diaries of CIGS FM Lord Alanbrooke for a better assessment of the
event. Naturally it is full of disparaging remarks but the reader is left in no doubt
whatsoever about the impression JVS left (Matron!) on the British delegation.
Churchill was stabbing Stalin in the back from day one, making any excuse not to open a
second front in the West, delay supplying pledged materiel – even so far as
deliberately sabotaging the Arctic convoys, specifically Convoy PQ-17.
Episode 18. How Britain assisted the Soviet Union's fight against Hitler (II)
Yes, very much the case. Eisenhower called the British "effort" a betrayal of the allied war
effort. The US Navy, after the PQ-17 British sabotage, vowed never to work with the British
again. This BS about "fighting them on the beaches, streets, whatever" is just poop meant for
the gullible.
The rule for retired intelligence officials is to keep their mouth shut and disappear from
the public view. This not the case with Brennan. Probably worried about his survival chances in
case of failure, Brennan tries to justified the "putsch" of a faction of intelligence officials
against Trump. Nice... Now we have indirect proof that he conspired with Michael Morell to depose
legitimately elected president.
Now the question arise whether he worked with MI6 to create Steele dossier. In other words
did CIA supplied some information that went to the dossier.
Moreover, since JFK assassination, the CIA is prohibited from spying on American citizens,
especially tracking the activities of associates of a presidential candidate, which is clearly
political activity.
This alone should have sent warning bells off for Congress critters, yet Brennan clearly
persisted in following this dangerous for him and CIA trail. Very strange.
Notable quotes:
"... Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous ..."
"... The article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed 'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides . ..."
"... The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." ..."
"... At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it. ..."
"... It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and acting Director of the CIA, should know better. ..."
"... In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly lacking in any actual evidence. ..."
"... Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its front page with a piece entitled Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials. ..."
"... It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even if it almost never has that result. ..."
"... "The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ." ..."
"... US is now like USSR? https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/05/29/forget-russian-collusion-we-are-russia/ ..."
"... The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. ..."
"... Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to them is high treason. ..."
"... Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface. ..."
"... "If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned." ..."
"... This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist. ..."
"... What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships. ..."
"... "Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal". ..."
The Washington Post and a number
of other mainstream media outlets are sensing blood in the water in the wake of former CIA
Director John Brennan's public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. The Post
headlined a front page featured article with
Brennan's explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump . The
article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign "reviewed intelligence that showed
'contacts and interaction' between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump
campaign." Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled
Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides .
The precise money quote by Brennan that the two
articles chiefly rely on is "I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that
revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the
Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such
individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the
co-operation of those individuals."
Now first of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the
activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off,
yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe, because it
was "classified," was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know from the New
York Times and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services, including the
British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at
least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan
unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear
that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian
operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and
elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.
But where the information ultimately came from as well as its reliability is just
speculation as the source documents have not been made public. What is not speculative is what
Brennan actually said in his testimony. He said that Americans associated with Trump and his
campaign had met with Russians. He was "concerned" because of known Russian efforts to "suborn
such individuals." Note that Brennan, presumably deliberately, did not say "suborn those
individuals." Sure, Russian intelligence (and CIA, MI-6, and Mossad as well as a host of
others) seek to recruit people with access to politically useful information. That is what they
do for a living, but Brennan is not saying that he has or saw any evidence that that was the
case with the Trump associates. He is speaking generically of "such individuals" because he
knows that spies, inter alia , recruit politicians and the Russians presumably, like the
Americans and British, do so aggressively.
At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that "I had unresolved questions in
my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting US persons, involved
in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting
fashion," clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents
voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it.
It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented
meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the
purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do
things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and
acting Director of the CIA, should know better. That they don't explains a lot of things
about today's CIA
Brennan confirms his lack of any hard evidence when he also poses the question "whether or
not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals." He doesn't know whether the
Americans were approached and asked to cooperate by Russian intelligence officers and, even if
they were, he does not know whether they agreed to do so. That means that the Americans in
question were guilty only of meeting and talking to Russians, which was presumably enough to
open an FBI investigation. One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia
was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense.
In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly
everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the
outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that "Russia
was engaged in an 'aggressive' and 'multifaceted 'effort to interfere in our election." As has
been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly
everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) "those who matter," it is singularly
lacking in any actual evidence.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the
Democratic National Committee (DNC) server, which now is accepted as Gospel, but that is just
one side to the story being promoted. Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its
front page with a piece entitled Top
Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer . Based, as always, on
anonymous sources citing "highly classified" intelligence, the article claimed that "American
spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and
political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his
advisers " The "discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly
focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had
established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials.
The article goes on to concede that "It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials
actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn ," and that's about all there
is to the tale, though the Times wanders on for another three pages, recapping Brennan
and the Flynn saga lest anyone has forgotten. So what do we have? Russians were talking on the
phone about the possibility of influencing an American's presidential candidate's advisers, an
observation alluded to by Brennan and also revealed in somewhat more detail by anonymous
sources. Pretty thin gruel, isn't it? Isn't that what diplomats and intelligence officers
do?
It would appear that the New York Times ' editors are unaware that the United
States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places
including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria,
Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point
of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don't appear to have any problem
when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even
if it almost never has that result.
How one regards all of the dreck coming out of the Fourth Estate and poseurs like John
Brennan pretty much depends on the extent one is willing to trust that what the government, its
highly-politicized bureaucrats and the media tell the public is true. For me, that would be not
a lot. The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable, but buying into
government and media lies will only lead to more lies that have real consequences, up to and
including the impending wars against North Korea and Iran. It is imperative that every American
should question everything he or she reads in a newspaper, sees on television "news" or hears
coming out of the mouths of former and current government employees.
Thanks for the reassurance, Phil. It's lonely standing against the tide, and many are
trying to fabricate excuses for the lack of evidence.
Take Melvin Goodman, author of Whistleblower at the CIA, for instance. (I realize CIA is a
big place, but did you know him?) I've met Mr. Goodman, and he struck me as thoughtful,
rational and capable of objective discussion. However, in his talk at the Gaithersburg Book
Festival, he seemed a rather different person. At the end of Q&A, he said that he was
trying to figure out how the Russians had laundered the "hacked" DNC emails to make it look
like they were leaked by an insider. He's sure the Russians did it. With such creative
speculation, who needs facts?
The book, though, is probably pretty good. Which makes it that much stranger that he's
taking the political line on the DNC emails!
Ah, another day, another disgraceful display by the media. Incidentally: "The
"discussions," which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly ."
"Presumably" here is quite generous: I'd be tempted to presume a whole string of lies
.
It's like climate change: The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the
Russians hacked the election and thereby influenced it, but when you dig a little you find
that NSA, for example, did not express a high degree of confidence that this might have
actually been the case. Nevertheless, the case is settled. Pravda and Izvestia should have
been so convinced in their day.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to
consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.
It all seems quite simple to me. After WWI the USA people decided that their sons should
not die ever more for imperialism. Isolation, neutrality laws. In 1932 Roosevelt was brought
into politics to make the USA great, great as the country controlling the world. Trump and
his rich friends understand that this policy is not just ruining the USA, but is ruining them
personally. If I'm right in this, it is the greatest change in USA foreign policy since
1932.
Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control
of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump. As
Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this 'enemy' to
them is high treason.
@exiled off mainstreet The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war,
since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both
fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our
survival.
Is he an Anglo-Zionist? I kind of missed a reference to the true puppet-masters in the
article
Is someone going to look in to how the Izzys influence our politicians and elections? No.
Why? Because Russia is the "enemy" and Israel is our "ally." Can someone explain in simple
terms why Russia is the enemy? Yes. Because Jews don't like them very much. Can someone
explain in simple terms why Israel is our ally? Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN,
Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual
citizenship, etc. And because every president just can't wait to wear the beanie and
genuflect at some wall. Any other questions?
" One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is
not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal
offense".
Although in point of fact the USA has committed, and continues to commit, acts of war
against Russia.
"Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major
newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. "
Let's not forget 911 and it's ongoing coverup, the State Dept's Bureau of Near Eastern
Affairs exemplifying our bestest ally's parallel command and control apparatus in every
federal agency such as the FBI, etc
The only problem I have with the article is understanding the vehemence with which Brennan
and Morell are denounced for, as I read it, blathering about unwitting agents who might have
co-operated without knowing it. I construed the objection to be based on a foreign
intelligence service necessarily seeking to "direct" its agents. It would indeed follow that
the agents could not help knowing what they were doing. However .
Is there not a category of people who Brennan and Morell might be referring to who could
be aptly described as useful idiots. You meet them at a writer's festival, invite them to
accept your country's generous and admiring hospitality and soon have them spouting the memes
you have made sure they are fed as well inadvertently feeding you useful titbits of
information, especially about people.
I think something fascinating is going on, Tom. Our leaders made a choice to defraud us
into the Iraq war. Russia didn't. This is a very serious crime for which there has been zero
accountability. It seems that all the various people who should be in federal prison for
having done this, are the one's "braying the loudest" about the Russian threat.
The real crisis in our country is the absence of accountability for the heinous crimes
THEY committed, not anything the Russians did. If we allow acts of "war fraud" to go
unprosecuted, then War Fraud becomes acceptable behavior. I do not know of one American,
anywhere, who feels this is okay.
Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that
hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server
It doesn't matter. Mr. Clapper finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar
question why US is suffering in his NBC interview -- it is because Russians are untermensch.
Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess.,
while the answer was so close, on the surface.
"If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to
interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who
typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a
typical Russian technique. So we were concerned."
I know some others actually know you cannot believe spies. Some on the other hand so
not.
Mar 22, 2017 How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media. It is no longer disputed that
the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and
journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented.
August 30, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW By Prof. James F.
Tracy
Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in
US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears
and reads on a regular basis.
@alexander Alexander, I definitely don't think it's OK, but I am not American – I
am British (Scottish, to be exact). Although we have exactly the same problem over here
– in miniature – with our local pocket Hitlers strutting around in their
jackboots just salivating for the blood of foreigners.
I think the people who are braying about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are doing so
largely to distract attention from their own crimes. The following celebrated dialogue
explains very clearly how it works.
-------------------------------------–
We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did
not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and
destruction.
"Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob
on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come
back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia
nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."
"There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the
matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can
declare wars."
"Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought
to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger. It works the same way in any country."
- Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert
@Tom Welsh I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is
true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking
himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over
the Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at
least since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack
Poland. The trap worked.
@Agent76 That even Senator Moynihan, of the CIA Oversight Committee, was lied to by the
CIA director, about laying mines in Havana harbour, says enough. The CIA is not a secret
service, it is a secret army. This secret army began drugs production in Afghanistan, mainly
for the USA market, when funds for the CIA's war in Afghanistan were insufficient.
@alexander It is.
After an investigation of some seven years the lies of Tony Blair were exposed, in a report
of considerable size. What happened ? Nothing. Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud
in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue.
Dec 12, 2016 Georgia Official Says Homeland Security Tried To Hack Their State's Voter
Database
While most of the country frets over Russia's role in the 2016 election, the state of
Georgia has come forward saying that they've traced an IP from a hack of their voter database
right back to the offices of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently we need to focus
on protecting our vote from our own government.
The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider
even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and
treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival. Brennan is just a regular
profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine
(initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started
immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but
this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was
confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media
on Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and
Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne
Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
Unfortunately for you and myself there are literally millions of people in America who do
not think or challenge what they read or view as we do apparently. Thanks, *government
schooling* .
Mar 6, 2017 Drug Boss Escobar Worked for the CIA
The notorious cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar worked closely with the CIA, according to his
son. In this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we look at the long history of CIA
involvement in the international narcotics trade, beginning with its collaboration with the
French Mafia to using drug money to illegally fund the Contras and overthrow the Sandinista
government in Nicaragua.
I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war. The opposite is true, he
sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself
care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the
Netherlands. What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least
since 1936. The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland.
The trap worked.
What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the
form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key
sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the
pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what
the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist
scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it
works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.
As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that
holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and
came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who
assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the
British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA
would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much
mistaken.
"Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government". I very
much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery
to retain control. As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference,
it would be illegal".
@Tom Welsh Well, another ruler also stated this, "Education is a weapon whose effects
depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Joseph Stalin
Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel
that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make
the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known:
https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
"CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed
by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on
Sunday.
Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in
eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday
to attack the protesters. "Brennan's appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a
violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,"
Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
"Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela,
has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals," Wayne Madsen, an
American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in
creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies
and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this
miserable opportunist.
the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed
by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014
I wouldn't so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a
Zio-bankster-quisling.
PG:
the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken
in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.
getting to the crux of the matter
when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan /
Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine
(some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate
Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking".
The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as
you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])
has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria
and elsewhere too.
All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll
eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery.
Which brings us to this curious comment..
The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,
what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!
So far the "buffoonish Donald Trump" has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know
the war sow would have by now. He's not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made
symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the
zio-media/AIPAC/etc..
His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the
apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.
In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on
the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.
And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at
Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's
need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets
them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get
to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than
anything else.
India was naughty as well and Nimrata Nikki Randhawa Haley ought to have taken the Indian
ambassador's name down as well. Maybe she'll even declare she won't ever set foot in India
again. Her relatives there will breathe sighs of relief!
Hours after Haley tweeted "We appreciate these
countries for not falling to the irresponsible ways of the UN," Voice of America's UN
correspondent Margaret Besheer posted an
electronic version of the invitation to twitter, which reads "Save the Date: The Honorable
Nikki R. Haley, Permanent Representative United States Mission to the United Nations invites
you to a reception to thank you for your friendship to the United States, Wednesday, January 3,
2018 6:00-8:00p.m. Formal Invitation to Follow."
US Ambassador Nikki Haley invites the 64 countries who voted 'no', abstained or didn't show up
for UNGA Jerusalem resolution to "friendship" party.
Naturally our first thought is that it sounds like it's going to be a pretty sad and deeply
awkward party. After all only 9 actually voted with the United States, and 35 were absentions,
leaving all the rest as no-shows. So even the majority of the 64 "friends" on the invitation
list were a bit too embarrassed to fully step up for their "friend" the first time around - why
would they then attend what sounds like a literal pity party for the losing side?
Perhaps the absentions will quietly show up trying to fit in at the "cool party" for the
winning team, wherever that may be. Newsweek has likened the invitation for making into the
'nice' column of the White House's "naughty or nice" list
.
And concerning what could very well comprise the "VIP part" of the invitation list - only
Israel, Honduras, Togo, U.S., Palau, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Guatemala voted
against the Jerusalem resolution to condemn the US move to recognize the city as the capital of
Israel and relocate the American embassy there. Two-thirds of UN member states including
Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, Belgium, Portugal, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Spain and
Greece voted in favor of the resolution.
Notably, Canada abstained, which is sure going to make the "friendship to the United States"
party extra stiff and awkward the moment the Canadian delegation walks through the door.
And who knows, perhaps a few of those countries that did vote 'no' alongside the US did so
because prior to the vote both President Trump and Nikki Haley threatened to cut aid to
countries failing to support the controversial US decision (well actually many are sparsely
populated micronations who have long essentially been dependencies of the US government).
Haley's
parting speech after the vote took on a threatening tone as well, as despite being isolated
by virtually the entire international community, she warned the international body that the
U.S. would remember the vote as a betrayal by the U.N., and that the vote would do nothing to
affect the Trump administration's decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital and move
its embassy there.
Haley reminded UN members of the US' generous contributions to the organization and said
that the United States expects its will to be respected in return. "When we make a generous
contributions to the UN, we also have a legitimate expectation that our goodwill is recognized
and respected," Haley said, adding that the vote will be "remembered" by the US and "make a
difference on how the Americans look at the UN."
And with all that parting drama, regarding Nikki's upcoming "friendship" party, it would be
great to be a fly on the wall for the event... or, perhaps it'll be too awkward even for the
flies.
this is yet another divide and conquer wedge issue. If you are against it they will label
you "unpatriotic anti-trump muslim-loving commie bolshevik." The cognitive dissonance is so
dense it's creating a vortex.
What a pathetic joke we've become on the international circuit. I loved the idea of #MAGA
and America first. But this? We're the laughing stock of international diplomacy.
U.S. Gives Financial Aid to 96% of All Countries. According to the federal government, for
fiscal year 2012, "The United States remained the world's largest bilateral donor, obligating
approximately $48.4 billion -- $31.2 billion in economic assistance and $17.2 billion in
military assistance." Oct 15, 2014
Merry Christmas we have decided to split $50 billion bewtween you 64.
You forgot it was the United State sand NO ONE ELSE who was pressing for the creation of
the United Nations. It is and always was an instrument for US control of it's mercantilist
policies. We gave money to South America and Africa and the Middel East out of the goodness
of our heart or in order to install regimes that allowed us to exploit their natural
resources?
You forgot it was the United State and NO ONE ELSE who was pressing for the creation of
the United Nations. It is and always was an instrument for US control of it's mercantilist
policies. We gave money to South America and Africa and the Middel East out of the goodness
of our heart or in order to install regimes that allowed us to exploit their natural
resources?
Astonishing reduction in death from famine versus previous centuries?
Education programs worldwide.
Population control programs.
I have worked many times with the UN in my career so I know what a sham it can be. But it
is an international institution that has prevented a major world or regional war since its
inception. You might be too young to know the seventies and eighties, but the UN served a
very useful purpose in giving a forum to argue between the world powers.
Trumpeteers call the UN a sham because the UN is not a US department. That is the entire
point. If you want war and to continue building the empire, just quit the UN. Cast off the
sheep's clothing and admit that the US is a violent, expansionist nation of thugs and
xenophobes.
I think what bothers Trumpeteers and right wing Americans the most about the UN is that it
costs money but the benefits are hard to measure. And Americans have no interest any more in
spending money to help people. Charity starts at home! Jesus was a white man. Death to
unbelievers. Fuck the poor and downtrodden. All of this is American zeitgeist. For years
Americans thought these things but did not dare to shout them out loud. Now Trump. a man with
no mental control over his words, shouts these things and Americans feel empowered. So fuck
the UN and all the money-grubbing poor people. Let them starve. And if they dare turn to
China or Russia we will bomb the shit out of them...in the name of democracy.
you can spout "MAGA" and "The UN sucks", but until you actually provide facts and
acknowledge facts, you look like any of the other mullet-headed, ignorant fuckheads here on
ZH.
There should be a major shakeup in the Trump team coming up imminently.
Those that put the bug in the President's ear concerning this fiasco creating move of our
embassy to Jewrusalem or on the other hand those that failed to stop him if he was set on
doing it.
We look like fools on the international stage
An interesting aside is the reaction of our main stream media to this whole affair.
The Donald trying to squeeze the UN. Vote our way or take the well known highway. Not bad
coming from the exceptional demockracy,,, the indispensable nation,,, leader of the Fee
world. Haley in an embarrassment to the US and to the species.
Worse,,, Many Americans have no problem with it. Hell, they screw each other on a daily
basis. In fact it's about the only way to make a buck these days,,, Ask the stooges at Ebay
or Amazon selling imported junk or any lawyer or MD. The sickness just never ends.
The Donald trying to squeeze the UN. Vote our way or take the well known highway. Not bad
coming from the exceptional demockracy,,, the indispensable nation,,, leader of the Fee
world. Haley in an embarrassment to the US and to the species.
Worse,,, Many Americans have no problem with it. Hell, they screw each other on a daily
basis. In fact it's about the only way to make a buck these days,,, Ask the stooges at Ebay
or Amazon selling imported junk or any lawyer or MD. The sickness just never ends.
The seven countries that sided Thursday with the United States and Israel on a U.N.
General Assembly resolution declaring "null and void" of Trump's Jerusalem Israel capital
1. Guatemala
2. Honduras
3. Marshall Islands
4. Micronesia
5. Nauru
6. Palau
7. Togo
35 creepy abstenshines.
Add U$A and I$$rahell to the seven comes 9 countries in fevour of.
Hellish repeatedly claimed that the move<<<for them to move the capital to
Jerusalem>>> was because of the will of Americans!
Question:
is Americans=Zionist/deep-state/
or
name exactly just one citizenry who happen beg Niki/Orange to trouble themselves.
Motherfuckers, they even said irrespective of the
UN votes resounding rejection, they gonna just ignore and move the USA embassy to
Jerusalem from Tel Aviv.
And not surprisingly the bibi whore played guilty trip and claimed the rejection was
disrespecting to the USA.
Lying , pricks super Psychopath.Bibi also confirmed he doesn't care the vote,implying they
gonna punish UN by pulling out U$A $$$$ supply?
How the world gonna see these outragious move? Silently ?
For those who dont understand, this is psychological warfare they will now try to run for
a while. Most of this will be actually happening in private talks between 2, kind of "you can
be part of us and benefit, rather than be on your own where we cannot guarantee your
country's future" - type of talk. When you see sometimes in the future significant number of
UN's reversal on this stance, you will know what I was talking about. Probably terms like
"surprise" will be used in the news headlines.
He wouldn't dare. Most US foreign aid consists of gift cards for shopping at Uncle Sam's
Arms Emporium . The rest, like food and medical aid, are just cover ops for the CIA station
chiefs. You think he's going to go against the MIC/CIA?
Christmas came early for Donald Trump. He signed a historic tax cut, kept the Government
funded and operating and, to the delight of many in his base, used UN Ambassador Nikki Haley as
a mouthpiece to tell the rest of the world to go pound sand. He is feeling groovy. But Donald
Trump is still his own worst enemy. And his Presidency will be fatally harmed if he continues
with his erratic foreign policy and his empty talk on dealing with the opioid plague.
Let's start with his wildly fluctuating foreign policy. There is no consistency nor is their
a theme. When he announced that he was recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, many
assumed he was on the Israeli leash and was behaving as any obedient dog would. Perhaps.
The Trump administration has approved the largest U.S. commercial sale of lethal defensive
weapons to Ukraine since 2014. . . . Administration officials confirmed that the State
Department this month approved a commercial license authorizing the export of Model M107A1
Sniper Systems, ammunition, and associated parts and accessories to Ukraine, a sale valued at
$41.5 million. These weapons address a specific vulnerability of Ukrainian forces fighting a
Russian-backed separatist movement in two eastern provinces.
The people we are arming in the Ukraine are the actual and intellectual descendants of the
Nazi sympathizers who helped the Einsatzgruppen murder more than a million Jews after Hitler
invaded the Soviet Union. Scholar Richard Sakwa provides the horrifying details on the pro-Nazi
ideological foundation of the key Ukrainian political groups we are backing:
"The Orange revolution, like the later Euromaidan events, was democratic in intent but gave
an impetus 'to the revival of the radical versions of [the] Ukrainian national movement that
first appeared on the historical scene in the course of World War II and a national discourse
focused on fighting against the enemy'.41 " . . . .
"In Dnepropetrovsk, for example, instead of the anticipated 60 street-name changes, 350 were
planned. Everywhere 'Lenin Streets' became 'Bandera Avenues' as everything Russian was purged.
One set of mass murderers was changed for another. Just as the Soviet regime had changed
toponyms to inscribe its power into the physical environment, so now the Euromaidan revolution
seeks to remould daily life. In Germany today the names of Nazis and their collaborators are
anathema, whereas in Ukraine they are glorified."
Excerpt From: Richard Sakwa. "Frontline Ukraine : Crisis in the Borderlands." from the
Afterward
At the very moment we are signaling our support for Israel, the country founded largely
because of the horror over the Shoah, we are also giving weapons to political groups whose
parents and grand parents helped carry out the Shoah. Oh yeah, in the process of doing this we
are providing a tangible threat to Russia. Imagine what our reaction would be if Russia decided
to step up its weapons supplies to Cuba.
Then we have Trump's tough talk on the opioid slaughter taking place across America. Let me
be clear. He is not responsible for the start of this plague. The Obama Administration carries
a heavy burden on that front. CBS 60 Minutes has done a magnificent job in exposing the role
that the Obama Justice Department refused to play in going after the major corporate opiate
drug pusher--i.e.,
the McKesson Corporation :
In October, we joined forces with the Washington Post and reported a disturbing story of
Washington at its worst - about an act of Congress that crippled the DEA's ability to fight the
worst drug crisis in American history - the opioid addiction crisis. Now, a new front of that
joint investigation. It is also disturbing. It's the inside story of the biggest case the DEA
ever built against a drug company: the McKesson Corporation, the country's largest drug
distributor. It's also the story of a company too big to prosecute.
In 2014, after two years of painstaking inquiry by nine DEA field divisions and 12 U.S.
Attorneys, investigators built a powerful case against McKesson for the company's role in the
opioid crisis.
[According to DEA Agent Schiller] This is the best case we've ever had against a major
distributor in the history of the Drug Enforcement Administration. How do we not go after the
number one organization? In the height of the epidemic, when people are dying everywhere,
doesn't somebody have to be held accountable? McKesson needs to be held accountable.
Holding McKesson accountable meant going after the 5th largest corporation in the country.
Headquartered in San Francisco, McKesson has 76,000 employees and earns almost $200 billion a
year in revenues, about the same as Exxon Mobil. Since the 1990s, McKesson has made billions
from the distribution of addictive opioids.
So what has Donald Trump done? That is the wrong question. What has he failed to do? We are
approaching the one year anniversary of his Presidency and Trump has failed to nominate a
Director for the Drug Enforcement Administration, a Director for the Office of National Drug
Control Policy, a Director for the National Institute of Justice and an Assistant Secretary of
State for the Bureau of International
Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs . In other words, none of the people who would be on
the policy frontline putting the President's tough words into action have been nominated. Not
one. And those agencies and departments are drifting like a rudderless ship on stormy seas.
Another problem for Trump is his mixed signals on getting entangled in foreign wars. During
the campaign he made a point of ridiculing those candidates who wanted to go to war in Syria.
Now that he is in office, Trump, along with several members of his cabinet, are threatening
Iran on almost a daily basis. The Veteran
Intelligence Professionals for Sanity just put out a memo on this very subject (which, I'm
happy to note, reflects some of the themes I've written about previously):
Iran has come out ahead in Iraq and, with the 2015 nuclear agreement in place, Iran's
commercial and other ties have improved with key NATO allies and the other major world players
-- Russia and China in particular.
Official pronouncements on critical national security matters need to be based on facts.
Hyperbole in describing Iran's terrorist activities can be counterproductive. For this reason,
we call attention to Ambassador Nikki Haley's recent statement that it is hard to find a
"terrorist group in the Middle East that does not have Iran's fingerprints all over it." The
truth is quite different. The majority of terrorist groups in the region are neither creatures
nor puppets of Iran. ISIS, Al-Qaeda and Al-Nusra are three of the more prominent that come to
mind.
You have presented yourself as someone willing to speak hard truths in the face of
establishment pressure and not to accept the status quo. You spoke out during the campaign
against the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq as a historic mistake of epic proportions. You also
correctly captured the mood of many Americans fatigued from constant war in far away lands. Yet
the torrent of warnings from Washington about the dangers supposedly posed by Iran and the need
to confront them are being widely perceived as steps toward reversing your pledge not to get
embroiled in new wars.
We encourage you to reflect on the warning
we raised with President George W. Bush almost 15 years ago, at a similar historic
juncture:
"after watching Secretary Powell today, we are convinced that you would be well served if
you widened the discussion beyond the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which
we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to
be catastrophic."
Finally, there is the recognition of Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel. I defer to Colonel
Lang on this. He believes that this single decision has planted an odious seed that will sprout
into a global anti-U.S. sentiment that will reduce our global influence and tangibly damage our
leadership on the world stage. While I suppose there always is a chance for a different kind of
outcome, I learned long ago not to bet against the old warrior on matters like this.
Taking all of this together I think we are looking at a 2018 where U.S. foreign policy will
continue to careen around the globe devoid of a strategic vision.
'' The people we are arming in the Ukraine are the actual and intellectual descendants of the
Nazi sympathizers who helped the Einsatzgruppen murder more than a million Jews after Hitler
invaded the Soviet Union''
They are also the descendants of the Ukrainians who were starved to death by the
Bolsheviks plundering of their crops first then starved again by Stalin.
That Jews figured large in the Bolsheviks is a fact and noted:..then and later.
A collection of reports on Bolshevism in Russia
by Great Britain. Foreign Office
''..anti-Semitism is growing, probably because the food supply committees are entirely in
the hands of Jews and voices can be heard sometimes calling for a " pogrom."
So I am giving Ukraine a pass on their so called threat to the Chosen.
You make my point. The NAZIS came up with lots of nifty reasons to justify exterminating
Jews. Starvation by Stalin, therefore kill the Jews. Yeah, that makes sense (sarcasm fully
intended).
"... And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly imaginary entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian" justification for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass destruction" that even if true wouldn't justify war. ..."
"... r Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they don't is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy worked pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for some time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia. ..."
"... They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part, corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that Washington ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia? ..."
"... The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the Russian public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the crisis in the Donbass. ..."
"... Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in "between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets ownership and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as an enemy. ..."
"... Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though this knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden connections to see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR. There might be even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story. ..."
"... Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is clearly inferior to its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still Ukrainian ..."
"... There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans. ..."
"... Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant types. We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army. ..."
"... Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this into people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live in a shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The problem is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize Ukrainian European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder. ..."
"... Unfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014). ..."
"... Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession – with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is inevitable. ..."
"... I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means to share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating over after the Maidan coup. ..."
"... So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial belt and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine has one of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by USNato waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and exudes of skilled people. ..."
"... Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least three reasons ..."
"... The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine. ..."
"... You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right? A bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under $5 billion. ..."
"... Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money than during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers and their wages rather than qualitatively improving capabilities of the army. ..."
"... The bottom-line is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the People's Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash with Russia. A short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and control, will make it impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian conscripts have no experience in urban warfare, and their national loyalties are unclear. ..."
"... Most ukrops even admit that Kharkov could easily have gone in 2014, if Russia had wanted it/feasible ..."
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making
What's remarkable to me about that graph of opinion over time is how pig-headedly
resilient Russian naivety about the US has been. Time after time it appears the scales
would fall from Russians' eyes after the US regime disgraced itself particularly egregiously
(Kosovo, Iraq, Georgia), and within a few months approval would be back up to 50% or above.
It took the interference in the Ukraine in 2014 to finally make the truth stick.
There are no disgraces incorporated into any of these events
That might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in
which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments, and supporting Georgia was, like
NATO expansion in general and numerous other consistently provocative US foreign policy
measures directed against post-Soviet Russia, a literally stupid matter of turning a
potential ally against the real rival China into an enemy and ally of said rival.
You are perfectly entitled to endorse mere stupidity on the part of your rulers, but the
fact that you so shamelessly approve of waging illegal wars counter to treaty commitments
discredits any opinions you might have on such matters.
Russians would have to acknowledge that they were naive idiots who threw away an empire
centuries in the making to end up within the borders of old Muscovy
Actually, present Russian borders are more those of Peter the Great, circa 1717, than Old
Muscovy. Russia, unlike nearly all the Great Powers of the C20th, has retained its Empire
– Siberia, the Russian Far East, Kamchatka, South Russia and the Crimea ( first
acquired as recently as 1783 ).
Once those dim-witted Ukies finally implode the Ukrainian economy, Russia will be able to
gobble up the rest of southern and eastern Ukraine – all the way to Odessa.
The places that seceded from the Soviet Union are places that Russians don't want ( Northern
Kazakhstan excepted ) and are urgently required to receive all those Central Asian immigrants
who will be deported by sensible Russian governments in the near future. ( I exclude
Armenians from the last clause )
Yes, US had squandered a lot of good will in exchange for extremely valuable "geopolitical
foothold in Eastern Europe."
Incidentally, Soviet propaganda was never anti-American. It was anti-capitalist, an
important distinction. Whereas in America, anti-Russian propaganda has always been anti-
Russian .
@RandalThat might be your opinion, but Kosovo and Iraq were openly illegal wars of aggression in
which the US shamelessly flouted its own treaty commitments,
We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq and both places had it coming.
Correction: Russian Federation is not a nation state. It is a rump state . Its
Western borders are artificial, drawn by the Communists in the 20th century, they exclude
those parts of Russia, which the Communists decided to incorporate into separate republics of
Belarus and Ukraine.
I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus
and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home'
– an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of
the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the
borders of this country.
PS: just because we had trouble holding onto Chechnya doesn't mean that annexing Belarus
will be hard. Sure, we can expect blowback in the form of Western sanctions, but I don't
anticipate much resistance from inside Belarus.
It took the interference in the Ukraine in 2014 to finally make the truth stick.
Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more
anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect, that
the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.
@Art
Deco With that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's incursions
into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the Ukraine.
US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever. US interests suffered as a
result of its ill-advised agression, they ended up empowering their avowed enemy –
Iran.
This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin
loosens its tight grip of the media.
How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media?
These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls public
opinion.
@Felix
KeverichCorrection: Russian Federation is not a nation state. It is a rump state.
Your 'rump state' extends over 6.6 million sq miles and has a population of 152
million.
Its Western borders are artificial, drawn by the Communists in the 20th century, they
exclude those parts of Russia, which the Communists decided to incorporate into separate
republics of Belarus and Ukraine.
It's western borders are no more artificial than that of any other country not bounded by
mountains or water.
I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming
Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call
'home' –
'Essential'? You just can't get through the day without Minsk?
As for White Russia, your constituency there has in its dimensions fallen by half in the
last 20 years.
As for the Ukraine, you've no discernable constituency for reunification. The constituency
for a Russophile foreign policy weighs in there at about 12% of the public. VP's
three-dimensional chess game is going swimmingly.
My own forebears discovered in 1813 that the residue of British North America was quite
content with gracious George III, and our boys got their assess handed to them by them
Cannucks. We got over it and so can you. Miss Ukraine is just not that into you. Best not to
play the stalker.
@Felix
KeverichWith that kind of thinking I don't see how you can criticise Russia's
incursions into the Ukraine. At least Russia has an actual reason to fight a war in the
Ukraine.
They dissed you. La di dah. My own countrymen have put up with that from an array of
Eurotrash and 3d world kleptocrats every time we open the newspaper.
US invaded and destroyed Iraqi state for no reason whatsoever.
No, we did so because that was the best alternative. The other alternative was a sanctions
regime which Big Consciences were assuring the world was causing a six-digit population of
excess deaths each year or taking the sanctions off and letting Saddam and the other Tikritis
to follow their Id. Iraq was a charnel house, and the world is well rid of the Tikriti
regime, especially Iraq's Kurdish and Shia provinces, which have been quiet for a decade. You
don't take an interest in the ocean of blood for which the Ba'ath Party was responsible, but
you're terribly butthurt that politicians in Kiev don't take orders from Moscow. Felix, I can
taste teh Crazy.
Your 'rump state' extends over 6.6 million sq miles and has a population of 152
million.
Exactly, and you're missing the point. Re-read my previous comment again: I don't know of any Russian nationalist, who wants Azerbaijan back, but reclaiming Belarus
and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all proudly call 'home'
– an actual Russian nation-state. Again, what really matters here is not the size of
the country, it's that all the land that's historically Russian should be fully within the
borders of this country.
Russians know more about these things than you do. The vast majority of us do not regard
Belarus and Ukraine as part of
"заграница" – foreign countries.
Ukrainians and in particular Belorussians are simply variants of us, just like regional
differences exist between the Russians in Siberia and Kuban'.
I don't care, because this isn't a popularity contest. There were similar polls in Crimea
showing majority support for the EU, just before the peninsula voted overwhelmingly to rejoin
Russia. LOL
The question that matters to me is will there be a vast resistance movement inside Belarus
following the annexation, and to be honest I don't expect one.
We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq
The treaty commitment in question was with almost the entire rest of the world, namely
when your country entirely voluntarily signed up to a commitment to "refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or
political independence of any state". If your country had retained the slightest trace of
integrity and self-respect it would at least have had the decency to withdraw from membership
of the the UN when it chose to breach those treaty commitments.
And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate imaginary
pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly imaginary
entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian" justification
for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass destruction"
that even if true wouldn't justify war.
An entire nation state behaving like a lying '60s hippy or a shamelessly dishonest
aggressor.
I'm sure you're proud.
and both places had it coming.
A straightforward confession of lawless rogue state behaviour, basically.
Do you actually think somehow you are improving your country's position with such
arguments? Better for a real American patriot to just stop digging and keep sheepishly quiet
about the past three decades of foreign policy.
@reiner
Tor Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they don't
is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy worked
pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for some
time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia.
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were taught
to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian. The rulers of Ukraine and, to a
much lesser degree, Belorussia are trying to erect cultural barriers between themselves and
Russia. Good luck with that, in the 21st century. It's more likely the culture will further
homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the world. Eventually it will tell.
Now, the question is if Russians will even want Ukraine back. This is not so clear.
What needs to be explained is not the sustained low opinion after 2014 but rather the
remarkable recoveries after 1999, 2003 and 2008.
Yugoslavia and Iraq were not that close to Russia and Russian elite was still pushing for
Integration into West at that time. After 2008, "Reset" and Obama happened.
It seems unlikely the Russian media would have been as sycophantically pro-Obama merely
for his blackness and Democrat-ness, though, and of course he wasn't around anyway in 2000
and in 2004.
Keep in mind that Obama's opponent in 2008 was McCain, that McCain.
Just like Trump, Obama seemed like the lesser evil and not to blame for previous
conflicts.
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were
taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.
This is for them to decide, not for you.
It's more likely the culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the
world.
Yeah, the culture homogenizes around the world, into global Hollywood corporate culture.
In the long there, "traditional Russian culture" is as doomed as "traditional Ukrainian
culture" and "traditional American culture" if there is anything left of it.
Polling by the Razumkov Centre in 2008 found that 63.8% of Crimeans (76% of Russians,
55% of Ukrainians, and 14% of Crimean Tatars, respectively) would like Crimea to secede from
Ukraine and join Russia and 53.8% would like to preserve its current status, but with
expanded powers and rights . A poll by the International Republican Institute in May 2013
found that 53% wanted "Autonomy in Ukraine (as today)", 12% were for "Crimean Tatar autonomy
within Ukraine", 2% for "Common oblast of Ukraine" and 23% voted for "Crimea should be
separated and given to Russia".
The takeaway is that Crimeans were satisfied being part of Ukraine as long as Ukraine had
an ethnic Russian, generally pro-Russian president like Yanukovich in charge (2013 poll), but
preferred being part of Russia to being part of a Ukrainian state run by Ukrainians (2008
poll, post-Maidan).
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were
taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.
Believer of Russian nationalist fairytales tells Russian nationalist fairytales. You
managed to fit 3 of them into 2 sentences, good job.
@AP I
was referring specifically to Russian attitudes about Ukrainians. I know that among
Ukrainians themselves, there is quite the confusion on this subject.
@Mitleser
Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of
competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.
I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US
even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after
9/11, though not so much after Iraq.
But I have been told by Russians who ought to have some knowledge of these things that
Putin and the wider regime were not so naïve even back in the late 1990s, so the case
can be made both ways.
reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all
proudly call 'home' – an actual Russian nation-state.
In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so
Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce the
cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with coerced
local labor) while under a sanctions regime. Obviously there will have to be a militarized
occupation regime and prison camps and a network of informants. A proud home.
Again, what really matters here is not the size of the country, it's that all the land
that's historically Russian should be fully within the borders of this country.
Baltics were Russian longer than Ukraine. Central Poland became Russian at the same time
as did half of Ukraine. According to the 1897 census, there were about as many Great Russian
speakers in Kiev governate as in Warsaw. Take the Baltics and Warsaw back too?
@AP
These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them. These
polls are meaningless : most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking
about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless
answer.
I'm sure, support for reunification will go up in Belarus, if the Kremlin shows some
leadership on this issue. We will find enough people willing to work with us, the rest will
just have to accept the new reality and go about their daily lifes as usual.
The situation in Ukraine is different, it differs wildly by region and will require us to
modify our approach.
@German_readerUS started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its own
preferences.
It did nothing of the kind. It ejected two governments for reasons of state. One we'd been
a state of belligerency with for 12 years, the other was responsible for a gruesome casus
belli. Now, having done that, we needed to put in place a new government. There was no better
alternative means of so doing than electoral contests.
How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media?
These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls public
opinion.
They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part,
corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure
-- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money
pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more
positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that Washington ruled out signing
a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would preclude Washington from meddling in
Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for
Russia?
Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more
anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect, that
the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the media.
Definitely no.
American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the Russians
that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost nothing.
Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of
competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.
I am just taking into account that the early 00s were right after the 1990s when
pro-Americanism was at its peak in Russia. Yugoslavia and Iraq were too distant too alienate
the majority permanently.
I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US
even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after
9/11, though not so much after Iraq.
Why do you think did he suggest joining NATO as an option?
Not because NATO are "good guys", but because it would ensure that Russia has a voice that
cannot be ignored. After all, the Kosovo War showed the limits of the UNSC and by extension
of Russia's voice in the unipolar world.
Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure --
carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money
pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and more
positive views of the West.
There is no reason to assume that West will offer the Russian elite enough carrot to
deregulate the Russian media order and the stick is just more reason not to do it and to
retain control.
What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?
And you think that people in Russian elite are not aware of it?
In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so
Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce
the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with
coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime.
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
– does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority – they
stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in Donbass. A
typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated white
collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist" – these are not
the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare, they will just flee (like they
already fled from Donbass).
In the west, opinion of the US was managed upwards with the Obama presidency because he
fitted so well with US sphere establishment antiracist and leftist dogmas that he had
almost universally positive (even hagiographic) mainstream media coverage throughout the US
sphere, but with Trump opinions of the US are mostly back down where Bush II left them.
I agree with most of this, but you leave out precisely why public opinion shifts.
My, rather cynical, view is that media is by far the main driver in shifting public views,
and so whoever gives the media marching orders is the Pied Piper here.
An example close to home was the consternation among some of my conservative friends over
the events Charlottesville. They knew nothing about the American alt-right, and still less
about the context of what happened that day, yet they still spoke of what a disgrace it was
for Trump not to distance himself from these deplorables. This was, of course, fully the
making of Swedish media.
The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the Russian
public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the crisis in
the Donbass.
ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would
preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you about
the Western elite's plan for Russia?
It tells me the reporters are confused or you are. There is no 'agreement' that will
prevent 'Russia' from 'meddling' in American political life or the converse. The utility of
agreements is that they make understandings between nations more precise and incorporate
triggers which provide signals to one party or the other as to when the deal is off.
Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in
"between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet
propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets ownership
and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as an enemy.
Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though this
knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden connections to
see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR. There might be
even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story.
Two powerful countries beside one another are natural enemies, they can never be friends
until one has been relegated by defeat. Britain and France were enemies until France became
too weak to present a threat, then Britain's enemy was Germany (it still is, Brexit is
another Dunkirk with the UK realizing it cannot compete with Germany on the continent).
Russia cannot be a friend of China against the US until Russia has been relegated in the way
France has been. France has irrecoverably given up control of its currency, they are
relegated to Germany's sidekick.
China is like Bitcoin. The smart money (Google) is going there. Received wisdom in the US
keeps expecting China's economic growth to slow down but it isn't going to happen. When it
becomes clear that the US is going to be overtaken, America will try and slow down China's
economic growth, that will be Russia's opportunity.
American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the
Russians that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost
nothing.
Being Russian, you would be in a better position than I am to comment on this, but the
obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the Russian
public and for what purpose? This article might hold the answer:
oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the responsible adults dealing
with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor appeasement, are free riders
on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a thousand times before, it's all
very unoriginal by now.
No, I'm a fat middle aged man who thinks most of what people say on political topics is
some species of self-congratulation. And a great deal of it is perverse. The two phenomena
are symbiotic. And, of course, I'm unimpressed with kvetching foreigners. Kvetching Europeans
might ask where is the evidence that they with their own skills and resources can
improve some situation using methods which differ from those we have applied and
kvetching Latin Americans can quit sticking the bill for their unhappy histories with Uncle
Sam, and kvetching Arabs can at least take responsibility for something rather than
projecting it on some wire-pulling other (Jews, Americans, conspiracy x).
Do they have one more soldier at their command and one more piece of equipment because
we had troops in Iraq?
Well, according to the likes of Mattis they certainly do. Have you never heard of the
Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), a large faction of which reportedly swear allegiance
directly to Khamenei.
Is that "victory" for you?
An of course they now have a direct land route to Hezbollah, to make it easier for them to
assist that national defence militia to deter further Israeli attacks. That's something they
never could have had when Saddam was in charge of Iraq.
Is that "victory" for you?
And they don't have to worry about their western neighbour invading them with US backing
again.
These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them.
These polls are meaningless: most ordinary people go about their daily lives never thinking
about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a meaningless
answer.
So according to you when hundreds or thousands of people are asked a question they are not
prepared for, their collective answer is meaningless and does not indicate their
preference?
So it's a total coincidence that when Ukraine was ruled by Ukrainians most Crimeans
preferred to join Russia, when Ukraine was ruled by a Russian, Crimeans were satisfied within
Ukraine but when Ukrainian nationalists came to power Crimeans again preferred being part of
Russia?
Are all political polls also meaningless according to you, or just ones that contradict
your idealistic views?
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
– does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear
that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder. (I'm not sure "draft" is the word
I'm looking for. My understanding is that they are temporarily exempt from military service
if they study at university or have good jobs.)
but the obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the
Russian public and for what purpose?
It is known – the minions of Putin translated into Russian language American (and
European) propaganda, and putting it on the website http://inosmi.ru/ .
The Americans also try: there is a special "Radio Liberty" that 24-hour broadcasts (in
Russian) hate speech against the Russian.
But it only speeds up the process (which will happen anyway) .
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
– does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
It was about 50,000 in 2014, about 200,000-250,000 now.
Polish military has 105,000 personnel. Poland also not united or willing to defend
itself?
On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority –
they stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in
Donbass
Avakov, Poroshenko's interior minister and sponsor of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, in 2010
got 48% of the vote in Kharkiv's mayoral race in 2010 when he ran as the "Orange" candidate.
In 2012 election about 30% of Kharkiv oblast voters chose nationalist candidates, vs. about
10% in Donetsk oblast. Vkontakte, a good source for judging youth attitudes, was split 50/50
between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan in Kharkiv (IIRC it was 80/20 anti-Maidan winning in
Donetsk). Kharkiv is just like Donbas, right?
A typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated
white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist"
Football hooligans in these places are also Ukrainian nationalists. Azov battalion and
Right Sector are both based in Eastern Ukraine.
Here is how Azov started:
The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect
82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least
until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during
the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv,
"Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and
served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was
formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]
Here is Azov battalion commander-turned-Kiev oblast police chief, Kharkiv native Vadim
Troyan:
Does he look like an intellectual to you? Before Maidan he was a cop.
these are not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare,
On the contrary, they will probably dig in while seeking cover in urban areas that they
know well, where they have some significant support (as Donbas rebels did in Donetsk),
forcing the Russian invaders to fight house to house and causing massive damage while
fighting native boys such as Azov. About 1/3 of Kharkiv overall and 1/2 of its youth are
nationalists. I wouldn't expect mass resistance by the Kharkiv population itself, but passive
support for the rebels by many. Russia will then end up rebuilding a large city full of a
resentful population that will remember its dead (same problem Kiev will face if it gets
Donbas back). This scenario can be repeated for Odessa. Dnipropetrovsk, the home base of
Right Sector, is actually much more nationalistic than either Odessa or Kharkiv. And Kiev is
a different world again. Bitter urban warfare in a city of 3 million (officially, most likely
about 4 million) followed by massive reconstruction and maintenance of a repression regime
while under international sanctions.
Russia's government has adequate intelligence services who know better what Ukraine is
actually like, than you do. There is a reason why they limited their support to Crimea and
Donbas.
Your wishful thinking about Ukraine would be charming and harmless if not for the fact
that such wishful thinking often leads to tragic actions that harm both the invader and the
invaded. Remember the Iraqis were supposed to welcome the American liberators with flowers
after their cakewalk.
In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear
that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder.
Correct. The thinking often was – "the corrupt officers will screw up and get us
killed, or sell out our positions to the Russians for money, if the Russians came to our city
I'd fight them but I don't wanna go to Donbas.." This is very different from avoiding the
draft because one wouldn't mind if Russia annexed Ukraine. Indeed, Dnipropetrovsk in the East
has contributed a lot to Ukraine's war effort, primarily because it borders Donbas –
ones hears from people there that if they don't fight in Donbas and keep the rebels contained
there, they'd have to fight at home.
@AP
LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types. And in Eastern
regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.
The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very few
of them – no more than 10.000 in the entire country. I assume Russian security services
know all of them by name.
To deal with Ukronazi problem, I would first take out their leaders, then target their
HQs, arms depots and training camps. I would kill or intimidate their sponsors. Ukronazis
would be left decapitated, without resources, undermanned and demoralised, trying to fight an
insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them. It will be a short lived
insurgency.
LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types.
And Russians and Poles were also soft when someone invaded their country? Ukrainians are
not modern western Euros.
And in Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.
Most pensioners. It will be about 50/50 among young fighting-age people.
The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very
few of them – no more than 10.000 in the entire country
Maybe. Ukrainian government claims 46,000 in volunteer self-defense battalions (including
Azov) but this is probably an exaggeration.
OTOH there are a couple 100,000 demobilized young people with combat experience who would
be willing to fight if their homeland were attacked, who are not neo-Nazis in Azov. Plus a
military of 200,000-250,000 people, many of whom would imitate the Donbas rebels and probably
redeploy in places like Kharkiv where they have cover. Good look fighting it out block by
block.
trying to fight an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them
In 2010, 48% of Kharkiv voters chose a nationalist for their mayor. In 2012 about 30%
voted for nationalist parties. Judging by pro vs, anti-Maidan, the youth are evenly split
although in 2014 the Ukrainian nationalist youths ended up controlling the streets, not the
Russian nationalist ones as in Donbas. This is in the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine.
Suuure, the population of Kharkiv will despise their kids, grandkids, nephews, classmates
etc,. but will welcome the invaders from Russia who will be bombing their city. Such idealism
and optimism in Russia!
@AP
Again, supporting Maidan doesn't mean you're ready to take up Kalashnikov and go fight.
Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.
This is what typical Maidanist Ukrainian youths look like; these people certainly don't
look like they have a lot of fight in them: They remind me of Navalny supporters in Russia. These kind of people can throw a tantrum,
but they are fundamentally weak people, who are easily crushed.
@Felix
Keverich Northern Kazakhstan is/was ethnically Russian, since the 1700s. This should have
been folded into Russia; the North Caucasus should have been cut loose. My opinion.
@Felix
Keverich Typical Russian mistakes regarding Ukraine: weak student-types in Russia are the
main supporters of Ukraine in Russia, thus the same type must be the main pro-Maidan people
in Ukraine. Because Ukraine = Russia. This silly dream of Ukraine being just like Russia
leads to ridiculous ideas and hopes.
As I already said, the Azov battalion grew out of brawling football ultras in Kharkiv.
Maidan itself was a cross-section – of students, yes, but also plenty of Afghan war
vets, workers, far right brawlers, professionals, etc. It's wasn't simply "weak" students,
nor was it simply far-right fascists (another claim by Russia) but a mass effort of the
western half of the country.
Here are Afghan war vets at Maidan:
Look at those weak Maidan people running away from the enemy:
Azov people in their native Kharkiv:
Kharkiv kids:
Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.
Dodging the draft in order to avoid fighting in Donbas, where you are not wanted by the
locals, is very different from dodging the draft to avoid fighting when your own town is
being invaded.
@AP
Summer camp was in Kiev, but there is another outside Kharkiv.
To be clear, most Ukrainians fighting against Russia are not these unsavory types, though
they make for dramatic video. Point is that pro-Maidan types in Ukraine are far from being
exclusively liberal student-types.
- The Russians ALWAYS were Americanophiles – ever since the Revolution. Russia has been
an American ally most often explicit but occasionally tacit – in EVERY major American
conflict, including the War on Terror and excluding Korea and Vietnam (both not major
compared to the Civil War or WW2). The only comparable Great Power US ally is France. Russia
and the US are natural allies.
- Russians are Americanophiles – they like Hollywood movies, American music, American
idealism, American video games, American fashion, American inventions, American support in
WW2, American can-do-aittude, American badassery and Americana in general.
- There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was
repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity
that is not Russian.
- The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government.
Yanukovich was certainly a corrupt scoundrel. But he was a democratically elected corrupt
scoundrel. To claim Russian intervention in his election is a joke in light of the CIA-backed
2004 and 2014 coups.
Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is clearly inferior to
its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still Ukrainian
@Felix
Keverich I think this poll is the most relevant for assessing the question, since it
covered different regions and used the same methodology.
Takeaway:
1. Support for uniting into a single state with Russia at 41% in Crimea at a time when it
was becoming quite clear the Yanukovych regime was doomed.
2. Now translates into ~90% support (according to both Russian and international polls) in
Crimea. I.e., a more than a standard deviation shift in "Russophile" sentiment on this
matter.
3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with
Russia post facto . Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov,
Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness
with the Ukraine before 2014).
4. Central and West Ukraine would not be, which is why their reintegration would be far
more difficult – and probably best left for sometime in the future.
5. What we have instead seen is a one standard deviation shift in "Ukrainophile" sentiment
within all those regions that remained in the Ukraine. If this change is "deep," then AP is
quite correct that their assimilation into Russia has been made impossible by Putin's
vacillations in 2014.
The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government
Typical Russian nationalist half-truth about Ukraine.
To be clear – Yanukovich was democratically elected in 2010, into a position where
his powers were limited and where he was faced with a hostile parliament. His post-election
accumulation of powers (overthrowing the Opposition parliament, granting himself additional
powers, stacking the court with local judges from his hometown) was not democratic. None of
these actions enjoyed popular support, none were made through democratic processes such as
referendums or popular elections. Had that been the case, he would not have been overthrown
in what was a popular mass revolt by half the country.
There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was
repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity
that is not Russian.
A bit closer to the truth, but much too simplistic in a way that favors Russian idealism.
Crimea (60% Russian) was simply not Ukraine, so lumping it in together with a place such as
Kharkiv (oblast 70% Ukrainian) and saying that Russia took one part of this uniformly
"Russian Ukraine" is not accurate.
You are correct that the western half of the country are a non-Russian Polish-but-not
Habsburg central Ukraine/Volynia, and Polish-and-Habsburg Galicia.
But the other half consisted of two parts: ethnic Russian Crimea (60% Russian) and largely
ethniuc-Russian urban Donbas (about 45% Russian, 50% Ukrainian), and a heavily Russified but
ethnic Ukrainian Kharkiv oblast (70% Ukrainian, 26% Russian), Dnipropetrovsk (80% Ukrainian,
20% Russian), Kherson (82% Ukrainian, 14% Russian), and Odessa oblast (63% Ukrainian, 21%
Russian).
The former group (Crimea definitely, and urban Donbas less strongly) like being part of
Russia. The latter group, on the other hand, preferred that Ukraine and Russia have friendly
ties, preferred Russian as a legal language, preferred economic union with Russia, but did
not favor loss of independence. Think of them as pro-NAFTA American-phile Canadians who would
nevertheless be opposed to annexation by the USA and would be angered if the USA grabbed a
chunk of Canada. In grabbing a chunk of Ukraine and supporting a rebellion in which Kharkiv
and Dnipropetrovsk kids are being shot by Russian-trained fighters using Russian-supplied
bullets, Putin has turned these people off the Russian state.
3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with
Russia post facto. Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk,
Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness with the
Ukraine before 2014).
'Asumptions' like this are what provide Swiss cheese the airy substance that makes it less
caloric! Looks like only the retired sovok population in the countryside is up to supporting
your mythical 'NovoRosija' while the more populated city dwellers would be opposed, even by
your own admission (and even this is questionable). I'm surprised that the dutifully loyal
and most astute opposition (AP) has let this blooper pass without any comment?
@Anatoly
Karlin I think when answering this question, most people simple give what they consider
to be the socially acceptable answer, especially in contemporary Ukraine, where you will go
to prison for displaying Russian flag – who wants to be seen as a "separatist"?
In Crimea it has become more socially acceptable to identify with Russia following the
reunification, which is why the number of people who answer this way shot up . The
same effect will seen in Belarus and Ukraine – I'm fairly certain of it.
Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and
Kherson
Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of society.
Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic profile of
Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters. Most of them will react to
Russian takeover by self-deporting – they have the money and resources to do it.
Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic
profile of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters.
The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect
82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at least
until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014, during
the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in Kharkiv,
"Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in Kharkiv and
served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect 82″ there was
formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]
The brawling East Ukrainian nationalists who took the streets of Kharkiv and Odessa were
not mostly rich, fey hipsters.
Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of
society.
So, even by tour own admission, the only folks that would be for unifying with Russia are
the uneducated, poor and those with no hopes of ever amounting to much in society. I don't
agree with you, but I do see your logic. These are just the type of people that are the most
easily manipulated by Russian propoganda – a lot of this went on in the Donbas, and we
can see the results of that fiasco to this day.
a)Post-WWII American power elites are both incompetent and arrogant (which is a first
derivative of incompetence) to understand that–this is largely the problem with most
"Western" elites.
b) Currently the United States doesn't have enough (if any) geopolitical currency and
clout to "buy" Russia. In fact, Russia can take what she needs (and she doesn't have "global"
appetites) with or without the US. Plus, China is way more interested in Russia's services
that the US, which will continue to increasingly find out more about its own severe
military-political limitations.
c) The United States foreign policy is not designed and is not being conducted to serve
real US national interests. In fact, US can not even define those interests beyond the
tiresome platitudes about "global interests" and being "exceptional".
@AP I
like how I got you talking about the Ukronazis, it's kinda funny actually, so let me pose as
Ukraine's "defender" here:
This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern
Ukraine. These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes. They are despised, looked down upon
by the normal people, pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian alike. A typical Ukrainian nationalist
East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an office worker, a student who dodges
draft. It's just the way it is.
@AP The
way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of delinquents, for
whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources, bigger guns and
perhaps even political power. Azov is simply a gang. And Russian security services
have plenty of experience dealing with gangs, so I don't expect Ukronazis to pose a major
challenge.
@Felix
Keverich I'm not sure about Ukrainian football hooligans, but football hooligans in
Hungary are not necessarily "low -lifes, criminals, delinquents", in fact, the majority of
them aren't. Most groups consist mostly of working class (including a lot of security guards
and similar) members, but there are some middle class (I know of a school headmaster, though
I think he's no longer very active in the group) and working class entrepreneur types (e.g.
the car mechanic who ended up owning a car dealership) and similar. I think outright criminal
types are a small minority. Since it costs money to attend the matches, outright failures
(the permanently unemployed and similar ne'er-do-wells) are rarely found in such groups.
@reiner
Tor LOL I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their
pastime. Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder,
kidnapping and racketeering. Their criminal activities go unpunished by the regime, because
they are considered "heroes" or something.
This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern
Ukraine.
If by "representative" you mean majority, sure. Neither are artsy students, or Afghan war
veterans, or schoolteachers, any other group a majority.
Also not all of the street fighters turned militias neo-Nazis, as are Azov. Right Sector
are not neo-Nazis, they are more fascists.
These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes.
As reiner tor correctly pointed out, this movement which grew out of the football ultra
community is rather working class but is not lumpens. You fail again.
A typical Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an
office worker, a student who dodges draft
Are there more business owners, students (many of whom do not dodge the draft), office
workers combined than there are ultras/far-right brawlers? Probably. 30% of Kharkiv voted for
nationalist parties (mostly Tymoshenko's and Klitschko's moderates) in the 2012 parliamentary
elections, under Yanukovich. That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There
aren't 900,000 brawling far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?
The exteme nationalist Banderist Svoboda party got about 4% of the vote in Kharkiv oblast
in 2012. This would make Bandera twice as popular in Kharkiv as the democratic opposition is
in Russia.
I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their
pastime.
They are well integrated into the rest of society, so you can call them low-lifes, but
they will still be quite different from ordinary criminals.
Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder,
kidnapping and racketeering.
But that's quite different from being professional criminals. Members of the Waffen-SS
also committed unspeakable crimes, but they rarely had professional criminal backgrounds, and
were, in fact, quite well integrated into German society.
The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of
delinquents, for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources,
bigger guns and perhaps even political power
Yes, there are elements of this, but not only. If they were ethnic Russians, as in Donbas,
they would have taken a different path, as did the pro-Russian militants in Donbas who are
similar to the ethnic Ukrainian Azovites. Young guys who like to brawl and are ethnic
Russians or identify s such joined organizations like Oplot and moved to Donbas to fight
against Ukraine, similar types who identified as Ukrainians became Azovites or joined similar
pro-Ukrainian militias. Also not all of these were delinquents, many were working class,
security guards, etc.
Good that you admit that in Eastern Ukraine nationalism is not limited to student
activists and businessmen.
And Russian security services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs,
They chose to stay away from Kharkiv and limit Russia's action to Donbas, knowing that
there would be too much opposition, and not enough support, to Russian rule in Kharkiv to
make the effort worthwhile.
@Anon
Out of all hypotheses on the JFK assassination the one that Israel was behind it is the
strongest. There is no question about it. From the day one when conspiracy theories were
floated everything was done to hide how Israel benefited form the assassination.
@reiner
Tor I feel that comparing Azov to SS gives it too much credit.
My point is that this way of life is not something that many people in Ukraine are willing
to actively participate in. Most people are not willing to condone it either. AP says that
Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities. But I don't see how
this could work – there will a thousand people around them willing to rat them out.
There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and
it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.
That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling
far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?
This means these people won't pose a big problem. These folks will take care of themselves
either through self-deportation or gradually coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov,
just like their compatriots in Crimea did.
Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant types.
We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass
republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire
Ukrainian army. We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.
AP says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities.
But I don't see how this could work – there will a thousand people around them
willing to rat them out.
About 1/3 of the population in Eastern Ukrainian regions voted for Ukrainian nationalists
in 2012, compared to only 10% in Donbas. Three times as many. Likely after 2014 many of the
hardcore pro-Russians left Kharkiv, just as hardcore pro-Ukrainians left Donetsk. Furthermore
anti-Russian attitudes have hardened, due to the war, Crimea, etc. So there would be plenty
of local support for native insurgents.
Russians say, correctly, that after Kiev has shelled Donetsk how can the people of Donetsk
reconcile themselves with Kiev?
The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian forces
have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their
city in order to to take it under their control?
There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and
it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.
Crimea was 60% Russian, Donbas Republics territory about 45% Russian; Kharkiv oblast is
only 25% Russian.
With Donbas – there are actually local pro-Ukrainian militants from Donbas, in the
Donbas and Aidar battalions.
@AP It
was a decision that Putin personally made. He wasn't going to move in Crimea either, until
Maidanists overthrew his friend
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even desirable.
And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being intimidated
by Azov militia.
These folks will take care of themselves either through self-deportation or gradually
coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea
did
The problem with this comparison is that Crimeans were far more in favor of joining Russia
that are Kharkivites.
The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to
Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army.
Ukrainian military has 200,000 – 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves.
Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?
We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.
You would be able to recruit some local proxies in Kharkiv. Kiev even did so in Donbas.
But given the fact that Ukrainian nationalism was 3 times more popular on Kharkiv than in
Donetsk, and that Kharkiv youth were split 50/50 in terms of or versus anti Maidan support
(versus 80/20 IIIRC anti-Maidan in Donbas), it would not be so easy. Moreover, by now many of
the hardcore anti-Kiev people have already left Kharkiv, while Kharkiv has had some
settlement by pro-Ukrainian dissidents from Donbas. So the situation even in 2014 was hard
enough that Russia chose to stay away, now it is even worse for the pro-Russians.
And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being
intimidated by Azov militia.
This is rather a symptom of a much wider phenomenon: the population simply doesn't see
itself as Russian and doesn't want to be part of Russia. So its hooligan-types go for
Ukrainian, not Russian, nationalism as is the case in Russia.
The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian
forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders
shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?
The locals will move to disarm Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then
welcome Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol
It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of
Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the
perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains completely
undefended. It's wide open!
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even
desirable.
Well there you have it. Putin is a much smarter guy than you are Felix (BTW, are you
Jewish, all of the Felix's that I've known were Jewish?). Good to see that you're nothing
more than a blackshirted illusionist.*
@for-the-record
German and European reliance on US security guarantees is a problem, since it's become pretty
clear that the US political system is dysfunctional and US "elites" are dangerous extremists.
We need our own security structures to be independent from the US so they can't drag us into
their stupid projects or blackmail us anymore why do you think Merkel didn't react much to
the revelations about American spying on Germany? Because we're totally dependent on the
Americans in security matters.
And while I don't believe Russia or Iran are really serious threats to Europe, it would be
foolish to have no credible deterrence.
"How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city in
order to to take it under their control?"
They will move to disarm ther Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then
welcome their Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol
While about 1/3 of Kharkiv voted for Ukrainian nationalists, only perhaps 10%-20% of the
city would actually like to be part of Russia (and I am being generous to you). So your idea
is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with flowers.
It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of
Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the
perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains
completely undefended.
Are you living in 2014? Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is
2014-2015. It is comforting for them.
Ukraine currently has 200,000-250,000 active troops. About 60,000 of them are around
Donbas.
Here is a map of various positions in 2017:
Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized
infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses). The map does not include national guard units
such as Azov, however, which would add a few thousand troops to Kharkiv's defense.
It looks like rather than stationing their military in forward positions vs. a possible
Russian attack, Ukraine, has put lot of troops in Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Kiev and
Odessa.
Ukrainian military has 200,000 – 250,000 active members and about 100,000
reserves. Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?
I read Kassad blog, and he says Ukrainian formations assembled in Donbass number some
50-70 thousands men. The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy
(LOL), the airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready. Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a
lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to feed and clothe their soldiers, which
limits their ability field an army.
By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men – that's
impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft.
@APSo your idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with
flowers.
The local populations in Iraq were congenial to begin with, at least outside some Sunni
centers. It was never an object of American policy to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized
infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses).
How many people does this "motorized infantry brigade" have? And more importantly what is
its level of combat readiness? Couldn't we just smash this brigade with a termobaric bomb
while they are sleeping?
Ukraine is full of shit. They had 20.000 troops in Crimea, "a lot of air defenses" and it
didn't make a iota of difference. Somehow you expect me to believe Ukraine has a completely
different army now. Why should I? They don't have the resources to afford a better army, so
it is logical to assume that Ukrainian army is still crap.
Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is 2014-2015. It is
comforting for them.
Betwixt and between all the trash talking, they've forgotten that the last occasion on
which one country attempted to conquer an absorb another country with a population anywhere
near 30% of its own was during the 2d World War. Didn't work out so well for Germany and
Japan.
@for-the-recordAustria, on the other hand, has survived for more than 60 years without the US "umbrella"
to protect it (and with a military strength rated below that of Angola and Chile), so why
couldn't Germany?
Austria hasn't been absorbed by Germany or Italy therefore Germany doesn't have a use for
security guarantees or an armed force. Do I render your argument correctly?
Not completely true, Germany didn't participate in the Iraq war and in the bombing of
Libya.
I'm hardly an expert on military matters, but it would seem just common sense to me that a
state needs sufficient armed forces to protect its own territory if you don't have that, you
risk becoming a passive object whose fate is decided by other powers. Doesn't mean Germany
should have a monstrously bloated military budget like the US, just sufficient forces to
protect its own territory and that of neighbouring allies (which is what the German army
should be for instead of participating in futile counter-insurgency projects in places like
Afghanistan). Potential for conflict in Europe is obviously greatest regarding Russia it's
still quite low imo, and I want good relations with Russia and disagree vehemently with such
insanely provocative ideas as NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia, but it would be stupid
not to have credible deterrence (whose point it is to prevent hostilities after all). I don't
think that's an anti-Russian position, it's just realistic.
Apart from that Germany doesn't probably need much in the way of military capabilities maybe
some naval forces for participation in international anti-piracy missions.
Regarding nuclear weapons, that's obviously something Germany can't or shouldn't do on its
own (probably wouldn't be tolerated anyway given 20th century history), so it would have to
be in some form of common European project. Hard to tell now if something like this could
eventually become possible or necessary.
@Felix
Keverich Sorry to prickle your little fantasy world once again tovarishch, but according
to current CIA statistics Ukraine has 182,000 active personnel, and 1,000,000 reservists! For
a complete rundown of Ukraine's military strength, read this and weep:
@Art
DecoThey've had ample opportunity over a period of 26 years to make the decision you
favor. It hasn't happened, and there's no reason to fancy they'll be more amenable a decade
from now.
Yes, these people had been sold a vision. If only they leave behind the backward, Asiatic,
mongoloid Russia, they will instantly Join Europe. They will have all of the good stuff:
European level of prosperity, rule of law, international approval, and so on; and none of the
bad stuff that they associated with Russia, like poverty, corruption, and civil strife.
Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this into
people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live in a
shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The problem
is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize Ukrainian
European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder.
The experience of Communism shows that it may take decades but eventually people notice
that the state ideology is a lie. Once they do, they change their mind about things rather
quickly.
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even
desirable.
Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in
Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool . More military adventurism is foolish for at
least three reasons:
(1) All the civilian deaths in the Donbass, somewhat perversely, play to Russia's
advantage in that they take some of the sting out of the "Ukraine is the victim" narrative.
Common people know full well that the Ukrainian troops are hated in the Donbass (I once
watched a Ukrainian soldier shock the audience by saying this on Shuster Live), and they know
also that Kiev has a blame in all those dead women and children. These are promising
conditions for future reconciliation, and they would be squandered overnight if Russian
troops moved further westward.
(2) The geopolitical repercussions would be enormous. As I and others have already
written, the present situation is just about what people in elite Western circles can
stomach. Any Russian escalation would seriously jeopardize European trade with Russia, among
other things.
(3) There is a good chance that Crimea will eventually be internationally recognized as
part of the RF (a British parliamentary report on this matter in 2015, I think it was, made
this quite clear). The same might also be true of the Donbass. These "acquisitions," too,
would be jeopardized by more military action.
You mean Putin mercs kill more Ukrainian civilians and we 'take some of the sting out of
the 'Ukraine is a victim narrative'? Sounds like a plan.
No, I wrote that those civilians are already gone and that both sides had a hand in their
deaths, which will help the peace process since no side can claim sole victimhood.
And your assumption that the separatists are mercenaries is groundless speculation.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
Did you cc the folks in Ramallah and Jerusalem about that?
Risible comparison. Theirs is a conflict involving three major religions and the survival
of the Israeli state at stake. On the Crimean question, we have already heard influential
Westerners voice the possibility that it might one day be accepted as Russian, and if you
read between the lines, many Ukrainians are of a similiar mind.
@Felix
KeverichUnfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military
since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014).
Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession
– with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is
inevitable.
Like it or not, but outright war with Maidanist Ukraine has been ruled out from the
beginning, as the more perceptive analysts like Rostislav Ischenko have long recognized. If
there was a time and a place for it, it was either in April 2014, or August 2014 at the
very latest. Since then, the Ukrainian Army has gotten much stronger. It has been purged of
its "Russophile" elements, and even though it has lost a substantial percentage of its
remnant Soviet-era military capital in the war of attrition with the LDNR, it has more than
made up for it with wartime XP gain and the banal fact of a quintupling in military
spending as a percentage of GDP from 1% to 5%.
This translates to an effective quadrupling
in absolute military spending, even when accounting for Ukraine's post-Maidan economic
collapse.
Russia can still crush Ukraine in a full-scale conventional conflict, and that
will remain the case for the foreseeable future, but it will no longer be the happy cruise
to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.
The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy (LOL), the airforce,
but most of it isn't combat ready.
250,000. Combat readiness is very different from 2014.
Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to
feed and clothe their soldiers, which limits their ability field an army.
Again, it isn't 2014 anymore. Military budget has increased significantly, from 3.2
billion in 2015 to 5.17 billion in 2017. In spite of theft, much more is getting through.
By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men – that's
impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft
It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
80% are natives. Perhaps as much as 90%. However, often it a way to make a meager salary
in those territories, so there is a mercenary aspect to it. Lots of unemployed workers go
into the Republic military.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
80% in 2014-15, to be precise; another 10% from the Kuban; 10% from Russia, the Russian
world, and the world at large.
NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians
– no Russian went there to get rich.
That said, I strongly doubt there will ever be international recognition of Crimea, let
alone Donbass. Israel has by far the world's most influential ethnic lobby. Even NATO member
Turkey hasn't gotten Northern Cyprus internationally recognized, so what exactly are the
chances of the international community (read: The West) recognizing the claims of Russia,
which is fast becoming established in Western minds as the arch-enemy of civilization?
@Anatoly
Karlin Fascinating link. The numbers for the military budget are a lot lower than
reported elsewhere.
Mobilization percentages by region:
"Among the leaders of the fourth and fifth wave of partial mobilisation were the
Khmelnitsky,
Dnipropetrovsk, Vinnytsia, Kirovohrad and Zaporizhia regions, as well as the city
of Kyiv, whose mobilisation plan was fulfilled 80-100% (the record was Vinnytsia oblast,
which achieved 100% mobilisation). At the opposite extreme are the Kharkiv, Chernivtsi,
Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lugansk, Sumy, Ternopil and Transcarpathian regions, where
the results of the mobilisation varied from 25 to 60%."
Summary:
2014:
The true face of the Ukrainian armed forces was revealed by the Russian annexation of
Crimea and the first weeks of the war in the Donbas – they were nothing more than a
fossilised structure, unfit for any effective function upon even a minimum engagement with
the enemy, during which a significant part of the troops only realised whom they were
representing in the course of the conflict and more than once, from the perspective of
service in one of the post-Soviet military districts, they chose to serve in the Russian
army
2017:
The war in the Donbas shaped the Ukrainian army. It gave awareness and motivation to the
soldiers, and forced the leadership of the Defence Ministry and the government of the state
to adapt the army's structure – for the first time since its creation – to real
operational needs, and also to bear the costs of halting the collapses in the fields of
training and equipment, at least to such an extent which would allow the army to fight a
close battle with the pro-Russian separatists. Despite all these problems, the Ukrainian
armed forces of the year 2017 now number 200,000, most of whom have come under fire, and
are seasoned in battle. They have a trained reserve ready for mobilisation in the event of
a larger conflict*; their weapons are not the latest or the most modern, but the vast
majority of them now work properly; and they are ready for the defence of the vital
interests of the state (even if some of the personnel still care primarily about their own
vested interests). They have no chance of winning a potential military clash with Russia,
but they have a reason to fight. The Ukrainian armed forces of the year 2014, in a
situation where their home territory was occupied by foreign troops, were incapable of
mounting an adequate response. The changes since the Donbas war started mean that Ukraine
now has the best army it has ever had in its history.
* The Ukrainian armed forces have an operational reserve of 130,000 men, relatively well
trained and with real combat experience, who since 2016 have been moulded out of veterans
of the Donbas (as well as from formations subordinate to the Interior Ministry). It must be
stressed, however, that those counted in the reserve represent only half of the veterans of
the anti-terrorist operation (by October 2016, 280,000 Ukrainians had served in the Donbas
in all formations subordinate to the government in Kyiv, with 266,000 reservists gaining
combat status; at the beginning of February 2017, 193,400 reservists were in the armed
forces). Thanks to that, at least in terms of the human factor, it should be possible in a
relatively short period of time to increase the Ukrainian army's degree of combat
readiness, as well as to fight a relatively close battle with a comparable opponent,
something the Ukrainian armed forces were not capable of doing at the beginning of
2014.
NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians
– no Russian went there to get rich.
Which further points to the critical role played by Russians. Many of the local volunteers
are participating because doing so offers a salary, which is very important in a wrecked,
sanctioned Donbas. The Russian 10%-20% are motivated, often Chechen combat vets. They are
more important than their % indicates.
@Gerard2
..and lets not forget the failure in mobilisation from the Ukrainian military
That and having to hire loads of Georgians, Chechens, Poles and other mercenaries. Pretty much tallys perfectly with the failed shithole Ukraine government structure full of
everyone else .but Ukrainians
@melanf
What is almost incomprehensible for me in these endless Russia vs Ukraine arguments is how
they (yes both sides) always ignore the real issues and instead keep on raising relatively
petty points while thinking that mass non white immigration and things like the EU
commissioner of immigration stating openly that Europe needs endless immigration, are not
important.
It's like white South Africans who still debate the Boer war or the Irish debate
the northern Ireland question, and are completely oblivious to the fact that these things
don't matter anymore if you have an entirely new people ruling your land (ok in South Africa
they were not new, but you know what I mean).
I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means to
share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic
sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating
over after the Maidan coup.
So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is
probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial belt
and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine has one
of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by USNato
waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and exudes of
skilled people.
What it got to lose to unify with Russia to have peace, prosperity and been a nation of a
great country instead of poor war torn? Plus a bonus of free Russia market access, unlimited
cheap natural gas and pipeline toll to tax instead of buying LNG from US at double price.
Sorry this s just my opinion based on mostly fake news we are fed, only the Ukrainian know
the best and able to decde themselves.
Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in
Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least
three reasons:
Yes, this is my view also. I think Russia was never in a position to do much more than it
has, and those who talk about more vigorous military interference are just naïve, or
engaging in wishful thinking, about the consequences. I think Putin played a very bad hand as
well as could reasonably be expected in Ukraine and Crimea. No doubt mistakes were made, and
perhaps more support at the key moment for the separatists (assassinations of some of the key
oligarchs who chose the Ukrainian side and employed thugs to suppress the separatists in
eastern cities, perhaps) could have resulted in a better situation now with much more of the
eastern part of Ukraine separated, but if Russians want someone to blame for the situation in
Ukraine apart from their enemies, they should look at Yanukovich, not Putin.
In the long run, it seems likely the appeal of NATO and the EU (assuming both still even
exist in their current forms in a few years time) is probably peaking, but strategic patience
and only limited covert and economic interference is advisable.
The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent
stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine
into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be
the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine.
You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right? A
bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under $5
billion.
Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money than
during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers and their
wages rather than qualitatively improving capabilities of the army.
The bottom-line is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the
People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the People's
Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash with Russia. A
short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and control, will make it
impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian conscripts have no experience in
urban warfare, and their national loyalties are unclear.
AP predicts that the cities of Kharkov, Dniepropetrovsk will be reduced to something akin
to Aleppo. But it has taken 3 years of constant shelling to cause the damage in Aleppo. A
more likely outcome is that Ukrainian soldiers will promptly ditch their uniforms, once they
realise the Russian are coming and their command is gone.
@Felix
Keverich Nominal GDP collapsed, but real GDP only fell by around 20%. This matters more,
since the vast majority of Ukrainian military spending occurs in grivnas.
By various calculations, Ukrainian military spending went up from 1% of GDP, to 2.5%-5%.
Minus 20%, that translates to a doubling to quadrupling.
What it does mean is that they are even less capable of paying for advanced weapons from
the West than before, but those were never going to make a cardinal difference anyway.
AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't agree
with him on that. In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no
large-scale American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have
been in 2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of
Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.
It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary.
It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL
My point is that this bodes well for our ability to recruit proxies in Ukraine, don't you
think? We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov.
That's the approach I would use in Ukraine: strip away parts of it piece by piece, create
local proxies, use them to maintain control and absorb casualties in the fighting on the
ground.
In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no large-scale
American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have been in
2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of Russian
military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.
Fortunately, we'll not be seeing a replay of the sacking and destruction of Novgorod as
was done in the 15th century by Ivan III, and all of its ugly repercussions in Ukraine.
Besides, since the 15th century, we've seen the emergence of three separate nationalities out
of the loose amalgamation of principalities known a Rus. Trying to recreate something (one
Rus nation) out of something that never in effect existed, now in the 21st century is a
ridiculous concept at best.
"It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary."
It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL
Well, they are, at least in the center and west. Kievans don't volunteer to fight because
they have no other way of making money. But you probably believe the fairytale that Ukraine
is in total collapse, back to the 90s.
We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov.
If in the process of taking Kharkiv the local economy goes into ruin due to wrecked
factories and sanctions so that picking up a gun is the only way to feed one's family for
some people, sure. But again, keep in mind that Kharkiv is much less pro-Russian than Donbas
so this could be more complicated.
@Anatoly
KarlinHow so? Poland and France (together around equal to Germany's population)
worked out perfectly for Nazi Germany.
You're forgetting a few things. In the United States, about 1/3 of the country's
productive capacity was devoted to the war effort during the period running from 1940 to
1946. I'll wager you it was higher than that in Britain and continental Europe. That's what
Germany was drawing on to attempt to sustain its holdings for just the 4-5 year period in
which they occupied France and Poland. (Russia currently devotes 4% of its productive
capacity to the military). Germany had to be exceedingly coercive as well. They were facing
escalating partisan resistance that whole time (especially in the Balkans).
Someone whose decisions matter is going to ask the question of whether it's really worth
the candle.
@Art
Deco Thanks for the correction. This suggests that transforming Iraq into a solidly
pro-Western stable democracy would have been much harder than doing so for Japan. This I
think would have been the only legitimate reason to invade in Iraq in 2003 (WMDs weren't
there, and in 2003 the regime was not genocidal as it had been decades earlier when IMO an
invasion would have been justified)
Again, much of Iraq is quiet and has been for a decade. What's not would be the
provinces where Sunnis form a critical mass. Their political vanguards are fouling their
own nest and imposing costs on others in the vicinity, such as the country's Christian
population and the Kurds living in mixed provinces like Kirkuk.
Correct, but most of this have been the case had the Baathists remained in power?
You've seen severe internal disorders in the Arab world over 60 years in Algeria, Libya,
the Sudan, the Yemen, the Dhofar region of Oman, Lebanon, Syria, and central Iraq.
Which is why one ought to either not invade a country and remove a regime that maintains
stability and peace, or if one does so – take on the responsibility of investing
massive effort and treasure in order to prevent the inevitable chaos and violence that would
erupt as a result of one's invasion.
@Anatoly
Karlin To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of
Russian military personnel. Use LDNR army: transport them to Belgorod and with Russians they
could move to take Kharkov, while facing minimal opposition. Then move futher to the West and
South until the entire Ukrainian army in Donbass becomes encircled at which point they will
likely surrender.
After supressing Ukrainian air-defence, our airforce should be able to destroy command and
control, artillery, armoured formations, airfields, bridges over Dnieper, other
infrustructure. Use the proxies to absord casualties in the fighting on the ground.
but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years
earlier.
Anatoly, please, don't write on things you have no qualification on writing. You can not
even grasp the generational (that is qualitative) abyss which separates two armed forces. The
question will not be in this:
but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years
earlier.
By the time the "cruising" would commence there will be no Ukrainian Army as an organized
formation or even units left–anything larger than platoon will be hunted down and
annihilated. It is really painful to read this, honestly. The question is not in Russian
"ambition" or rah-rah but in the fact that Ukraine's armed forces do not posses ANY C4ISR
capability which is crucial for a dynamics of a modern war. None. Mopping up in the East
would still be much easier than it would be in Central, let alone, Western Ukraine but Russia
has no business there anyway. More complex issues were under consideration than merely
probable losses of Russian Army when it was decided (rightly so) not to invade.
I will open
some "secret"–nations DO bear collective responsibility and always were subjected to
collective punishment -- latest example being Germany in both WWs -- the bacillus of
Ukrainian "nationalism" is more effectively addressed by letting those moyahataskainikam
experience all "privileges" of it. In the end, Russia's resources were used way better than
paying for mentally ill country. 2019 is approaching fast.
P.S. In all of your military "analysis" on Ukraine one thing is missing leaving a gaping
hole–Russian Armed Forces themselves which since 2014 were increasing combat potential
exponentially. Ukies? Not so much–some patches here and there. Russian Armed Forces of
2018 are not those of 2013. Just for shits and giggles check how many Ratnik sets have been
delivered to Russian Army since 2011. That may explain to you why timing in war and politics
is everything.
AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't
agree with him on that.
I wrote that parts of the city would look like that. I don't think there would be enough
massive resistance that the entire city would be destroyed. But rooting out a couple thousand
armed, experienced militiamen or soldiers in the urban area would cause a lot of expensive
damage and, as is the case when civilians died in Kiev's efforts to secure Donbas, would
probably not endear the invaders to the locals who after all do not want Russia to invade
them.
And Kharkiv would be the easiest to take. Dnipropetrovsk would be much more Aleppo-like,
and Kiev Felix was proposing for Russia to take all these areas.
To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of Russian
military personnel.
The question is not in losses, per se. Russians CAN accept losses if the deal becomes hot
in Ukraine–it is obvious. The question is in geopolitical dynamics and the way said
Russian Armed Forces were being honed since 2013, when Shoigu came on-board and the General
Staff got its mojo returned to it. All Command and Control circuit of Ukie army will be
destroyed with minimal losses if need be, and only then cavalry will be let in. How many
Russian or LDNR lives? I don't know, I am sure GOU has estimates by now. Once you control
escalation (Russia DOES control escalation today since can respond to any contingency) you
get way more flexibility (geo)politcally. Today, namely December 2017, situation is such that
Russia controls escalation completely. If Ukies want to attack, as they are inevitably forced
to do so, we all know what will happen. Ukraine has about a year left to do something.
Meanwhile considering EU intentions to sanction Poland, well, we are witnessing the start of
a major shitstorm.
Trying to recreate something (one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect
existed, now in the 21st century is a ridiculous concept at best.
A stupid comment for an adult. Ukraine, in effect never existed before Russia/Stalin/Lenin
created it. Kiev is a historical Russian city, and 5 of the 7 most populated areas in Ukraine
are Russian/Soviet created cities, Russian language is favourite spoken by most Ukrainians (
see even Saakashvili in court, speaking only in Russian even though he speaks fluent
Ukrainian now and all the judges and lawyers speaking in Russian too), the millions of
Ukrainians living happily in Russia and of course, the topic of what exactly is a Ukrainian
is obsolete because pretty much every Ukrainian has a close Russian relative the level of
intermarriage was at the level of one culturally identical people.
AK: Improvement! The first paragraph was acceptable, hence not hidden.
@Mr.
Hack economics, hope that the west and their puppets in Kiev would act like sane and
decent people, threat of sanctions and so on.
As is obvious, if the west had remained neutral ( an absurd hypothetical because the west
were the ringmasters of the farce in this failed state) ..and not supported the coup and then
the evil war brought on the Donbass people, then a whole different situation works out in
Ukraine ( for the better)
@S3
Nietzsche famously foresaw the rise and fall of communism and the destruction of Germany in
the two world wars. He also liked to think of himself as a Polish nobleman. Maybe this is
what he meant.
Its very amusing reading all the comments so far. But reality is that Russia should take back
all the lands conquered by the Tsars, and that includes Finland.
Look at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the
world. And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without
America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their
"presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office. Now America has
even moved into Eastern Europe, and has troops and radars and nuclear capable missile
batteries stationed there. So America is just expanding and expanding its grasp while Russia
must contract its territories even further and further. Yippee.
So Russia must take back all the territories conquered by the Tsars so as to not lose this
game of monopoly. Those in those territories not too happy about such matters can move to
America or deal with the Red Army. This is not a matter of cost benefits analysis but a
matter of Russia's national security, as in the case of Chechnya.
The territories to Russia's East are especially necessary for Russia's security; when the
chips are down, when all the satellites have been blown out of space, all the aircraft blown
out of the air, all the ground hardware blown to smithereens; when the battle is reduced to
eye to eye rat like warfare, then those assorted Mongol mongrels from Russia's East come into
their element. Genghis Khan was the biggest mass murderer in history, he made Hitler look
like a school boy, his genes live on in those to Russia's East. So if America were to get
involved in Ukraine Russia would have no issues losing a million troops in a matter of days
while the US has never even lost a million troops in its civil war and WW2 combined.
Lets face it, those Mongol mongrels make much better fighters than the effete Sunni Arabs
any day, so Russia should get them on her side. In Syria those ISIS idiots would never have
got as far as they did were it not for those few Chechens in their midst's.
But alas, Russia has to eat humble pie at the moment, internationally and at the Olympics.
But humble pie tastes good when its washed down with bottles of vodka, and its only
momentarily after all.
@gTLook at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the
world.
Since 1945, between 70% and 87% of American military manpower has been stationed in the
United States and its possession. The vast bulk of the remainder is generally to be found in
about a half-dozen countries. (In recent years, that would be Germany, Japan, Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Kuwait). Andrew Bacevich once went on a whinge about the stupidity of having
a 'Southern Command' without bothering to tell his readers that the Southern Command had
2,000 billets at that time, that nearly half were stationed at Guantanamo Bay (an American
possession since 1902), that no country had more than 200 American soldiers resident, and
that the primary activity of the Southern Command was drug interdiction. On the entire
African continent, there were 5,000 billets at that time.
And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without
America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their
"presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office.
I especially like the bit about "Though most of the German officers were not originally
inclined against America, a lot of them being educated in the United States, they are now
experiencing disappointment and even disgust with Washington's policies."
Seems its not only
the Russians who are getting increasingly pissed off with the US when at first they actually
liked the US. No wonder the Germans are just letting their submarines and tanks rot away.
"... The problems now of USA in global politics in general, and with Russia in particular, was not the NATO expansion but the corrupted neoliberal economic model that the USA and the West imposed on themselves and Russia. Russia after Yeltsin and during the time V. Putin is in power limited the scope and the damage the neoliberal system was doing to the country, but the USA and the West continue on the same corrupted neoliberal path up until today. Another cause of the geopolitical problems the USA have now were and are the wars in the Middle East. ..."
"... If the US wants to ring Russia with bases why should't US taxpayers pay for it? DOD's budget is partly for imperial policing and partly a regional and corporate gravy train. It has some true "defense" functions but those are very limited. Why would Germans or the French want to pay extra taxes to protect themselves from a "threat" that if it even exists is because of aggressive American foreign policy? ..."
"... Bacevich nails it again. As a Cold War veteran I couldn't agree more. The United States didn't "win" the Cold War -- the USSR "lost" it, instead. Therein lays a huge difference. You don't kick a dog when he is down. The mindless expansion of NATO eastward following the demise of the USSR in 1991 was stupid–anyone who knows Russian history and geography is keenly aware of this fact. Putin, just like Trump, is trying to make his country great again. Surprise!!! ..."
"... Given Russia's history of being invaded from the West, with Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union being the bloodiest conflict in human history, it is remarkable to me that our government cannot understand why expanding NATO eastward would be viewed as very alarming to the Russians. ..."
"... American elites spend American treasure for their imperium, so that American elite interests take precedence, as per Nuland's "F -- the E.U." Confoundedly, Andy omits the Ukraine putsch she midwived. He who pays the piper calls the tune – and if a Europe still occupied by American forces as the continuation of WWII were to pay its own money, that military occupation would shortly end, just as the withdrawal of Soviet support ended their European satrapies' support of the Warsaw Pact. ..."
"... I was thinking the same thing as Sal. Almost the entire Elite Nomenklatura in Washington and Wall Street can be considered a collective "nasty piece of work" given all of the social and economic wreckage that they have produced both at home and abroad. Putin/Russia's excesses don't hold a candle to the catastrophes ginned up by that crew of arrogant militarists and corrupted parasites. ..."
"... Colonel Gaddafi believed the United States and refused to develop nuclear weapons. But leader of North Korea does not want to believe the USA. What do you think, why is this? ..."
"... These satrapies are offering the US forward deployment for military assets, possibly including first strike and decapitation weapons again – as Germany did before the reunification – as well as basing for missile defense systems that will eventually -- if they ever work -- complement these destabilizing weapon systems. They also provide bases without which US operations in the Middle East and the Mediterranean would be much more costly, if not difficult. These "privileges" come at substantial cost, as South Korea is in the process of recognizing. ..."
"... It should also be noted that US activities in Georgia and Ukraine preceded Putin's "act of transgression". It should further be noted that the Georgia conflict is very much an example of the erosion of international norms that Clinton and Kohl initiated in the Balkan conflict – which Russia explicitly warned the US about. ..."
"... It is completely unbelievable that the Soviets (after two invasions by Germany that killed about 27 million Soviets) would have just shrugged at the idea of NATO expanding to Poland let alone the Ukraine. The real question is why didn't Gorbachev insist on a written treaty. There was nothing in US history that should have made him expect honesty so why nothing in writing? I have no doubt he was lied to or manipulated but was he really that naive or incompetent to trust the US? ..."
"... Right after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I told my wife that, while the Soviets came in 'last' in the Cold War, the US came in second-to-last. I told her that Japan won the Cold War. The Soviets made tanks, the US made tanks and Japan made Nissans. My 1985 Nissan pickup truck still runs great and where are all the tanks today? Mind you, this was before the collapse of the Japanese stock market. ..."
"... Russia bought that land from Sweden, the same as the US bought Alaska. They gave them their independence after the revolution. All of these countries were dictatorships before the WWII and all of them voted and asked to join the USSR. ..."
"... On that note, I really think that my interview with Professor Richard Sakwa (Chatham House) titled "Between the Cold War and the Cold Peace: How the West betrayed Russia" may also be of your interest. ..."
"... Deep State's durable foreign policy, which is always the de facto policy, is remarkably resilient no matter which political party is elected to fill the chairs. Elections and the will of the voters have virtually no influence on it, except in the tenor of the propaganda. ..."
"... I am amazed at all of the commenters who think expanding NATO up to the borders of Russia is a great idea. How would you like for Russia to form a military alliance with Mexico and for the Russian military to be conducting exercises along our southern border with Mexico? ..."
President George H. W. Bush and President Mikhail Gorbachev sign United States/Soviet Union agreements to end
chemical weapon production and begin destroying their respective stocks in the East Room of the White House,
Washington, DC in June 1990. (White House photo)
Statecraft is a complicated business, but the criteria by which we judge statesmen turn
out to be less so. The central question reduces to whether those charged with formulating policy succeed in enhancing
the power and security of the nation they lead.
Yet near-term advantage does not necessarily translate into long-term benefit. With
the passage of time, a seemingly clever gambit can yield poisonous fruit. So it is with the way the George Herbert
Walker Bush administration managed the end of the Cold War.
From a geopolitical perspective, the Cold War from the very outset had centered on the
German question. Concluding that conflict necessarily required resolving Germany's anomalous division into two halves,
with West Germany a key member of NATO and East Germany occupying a similar status in the opposing Warsaw Pact. Of
course, no such resolution could be possible unless the victors of World War II, primarily the United States and the
Soviet Union, but also Great Britain and France, all concurred.
Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev provided the necessary catalyst to make agreement
possible. Gorbachev's bold effort to reform and thereby save the USSR, launched in the mid-1980s, converted the belt of
Soviet satellites in Eastern Europe from a source of strategic depth to a collection of liabilities. When Gorbachev
signaled that unlike his predecessors he had no intention of using force to maintain the Soviet Empire, it almost
immediately disintegrated. With that, momentum for German reunification became all but irresistible.
By the end of 1989, the issue facing policymakers on both sides of the rapidly
vanishing Iron Curtain was not whether reunification should occur, but where a reunited Germany would fit in a radically
transformed political landscape. Already possessing the biggest economy in all of Europe, Germany seemed certain to
become even more of a powerhouse once it had absorbed its formerly communist eastern precincts. No one -- including German
Chancellor Helmut Kohl -- thought it a good idea to allow this new Germany to become a free-floater, situated in the center
of Europe but untethered from the sort of restraints that the Cold War had imposed.
For Washington, London, and Paris, the solution was obvious: keep the Germans in a
warm but firm embrace. Ensuring that a united Germany remained part of NATO would reduce the likelihood of it choosing
at some future date to strike an independent course.
The challenge facing the Western allies was to persuade Gorbachev to see the wisdom of
this proposition. After all, twice within memory, Germany had invaded Russia, inflicting almost unimaginable damage and
suffering. That the Soviets might view with trepidation the prospect of a resurgent Germany remaining part of an
explicitly anti-Soviet military alliance was not paranoia. It was prudence.
To make that prospect palatable, the Bush administration assured the Soviets that they
had nothing to fear from a Western alliance that included a united Germany. NATO no longer viewed the USSR as an
adversary. Apart from incorporating the territory of the former East Germany, the alliance was going to stay put.
Washington was sensitive to and would respect Russia's own security interests. So at least U.S. officials claimed.
Thanks to
newly declassified documents
published by the National Security Archive, we now have a clearer appreciation of just
how explicit those assurances were. Among the documents is the transcript of an especially revealing conversation
between Gorbachev and Secretary of State James Baker in Moscow on February 9, 1990.
The discussion touched on several topics, but centered on the German question. As
Baker framed the issue, history was now handing the victorious allies an opportunity to correct the mistakes they had
made in the wake of World War II. "We fought alongside with you; together we brought peace to Europe," Baker told
Gorbachev. "Regrettably, we then managed this peace poorly, which led to the Cold War," he continued.
"We could not cooperate then," he said. "Now, as rapid and fundamental changes are
taking place in Europe, we have a propitious opportunity to cooperate in the interests of preserving the peace. I very
much want you to know: neither the president nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that
are taking place."
Washington's intentions were friendly. Gorbachev could absolutely count on the Bush
administration to support his
perestroika
and
glasnost
initiatives. "In a word, we want your efforts to be successful," Baker insisted. Indeed,
he continued, "if somewhere in the course of events you feel that the United States is doing something undesirable to
you, without hesitation call us and tell us about it."
By extension, there was no need for Gorbachev to trouble himself about NATO. The
alliance provided "the mechanism for securing the U.S. presence in Europe," which, Baker implied, was good for everyone.
Keeping G.I.s in Europe would prevent Germany from once more becoming a troublemaker, benefiting all parties to include
the USSR.
"We understand," Baker continued, "that not only for the Soviet Union but for other
European countries as well it is important to have guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany
within the framework of NATO,
not an inch of NATO's present military
jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction
[emphasis added]." Indeed,
the proposed U.S. approach to negotiating terms for ending Germany's division would "guarantee that Germany's
unification will not lead to NATO's military organization spreading to the east."
The secretary of state then posed a hypothetical. "Supposing unification takes place,"
he asked Gorbachev, "what would you prefer: a united Germany outside of NATO, absolutely independent and without
American troops; or a united Germany keeping its connections with NATO, but with the guarantee that NATO's jurisprudence
[jurisdiction?] or troops will not spread east of the present boundary?"
The issue was one he wished to discuss with his colleagues, Gorbachev replied,
remarking only that "it goes without saying that a broadening of the NATO zone is not acceptable."
To which Baker responded: "We agree with that."
Later that very year German reunification became an accomplished fact. By the end of
the following year, Gorbachev was out of a job and the Soviet Union had become defunct. Before another 12 months had
passed, Baker's boss lost his bid for a second term as Americans elected their first post-Cold War president. By this
time, countries of the former Warsaw Pact were already clamoring to join NATO. The administration of Bill Clinton proved
more than receptive to such appeals. As a consequence, the assurances given to Gorbachev were rendered inoperative.
NATO's eastward march commenced, with the alliance eventually incorporating not only
former Soviet satellites but even former Soviet republics. In effect, U.S. policymakers responded favorably to the
aspirations of Estonians, Latvians, and Lithuanians while disregarding Russian security interests, apparently assuming
that Kremlin leaders had no recourse but to concede.
As long as Russia remained weak, that may well have been the case. As if to press home
the point, Clinton's successors even toyed with the idea of inviting Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO -- more or less the
equivalent of incorporating Cuba and Mexico into the Warsaw Pact back in the bad old days.
At that point, a Kremlin leader less trusting of the West than Gorbachev had been
decided that enough was enough. Vladimir Putin, a very nasty piece of work but also arguably a Russian patriot, made it
clear that NATO's eastward expansion had ended. Putin's 2008 armed intervention in Georgia, annexation of the Crimea in
2014, and multiple incursions into Ukraine beginning that same year elicited howls of protest from the Washington
commentariat. Putin, they charged, was trampling on the "norms" of international conduct that were supposed to govern
behavior in the post-Cold War world.
But Putin was not wrong to observe that the United States routinely exempted itself
from any such norms when it perceived its own vital interests to be at stake. For roughly a quarter century, the United
States had paid no price for picking Gorbachev's pocket back in 1990. Indeed, nations once unhappily lodged within the
Soviet sphere had thereby benefited greatly. NATO became a club open to everyone but Russia. In Washington's favored
formulation, Europe thereby became "whole and free." Now, however, the bills incurred by this feckless policy are coming
due and Europeans are looking to the United States to pay them.
Today's NATO consists of 29 nations, nearly double what its membership was when
Secretary Baker promised Gorbachev that the alliance would not advance a single inch eastward. When it comes to paying
for the collective defense, few of those nations contribute their required share. In effect, America's allies expect it
to do the heavy lifting. The United States has thereby incurred burdensome obligations without accruing any obvious
benefit. Once more, over 70 years after World War II, the United States is sending its troops to defend Europeans fully
capable of defending themselves. Donald Trump has charged, not without cause, that our allies are playing us for
suckers.
In today's Washington, where Russophobia runs rampant, it has become fashionable to
speak of a New Cold War, provoked by Putin's aggressive actions. Yet if we are indeed embarking upon a new age of
brinksmanship, we can trace its origins to 1990 when Putin was merely a disgruntled KGB colonel and we were playing the
Soviets for suckers.
In his meeting with Gorbachev, Baker expressed regret about the victorious allies
mismanaging the opportunity for peace created by the end of World War II. A similar judgment applies to the opportunity
for peace created by the end of the Cold War. Upon reflection, the United States might have been better served had it
honored its 1990 commitment to Gorbachev.
AB is partly correct in that both Baker and Genscher did make very bold proposals to Soviet leadership about
the future of NATO – – Baker's 'not one inch into East Germany' conception being less extensive than Genscher's
comprehensive non-expansion 'Tutzing formulation' – – but he should have put much greater emphasis on at least
two points: 1) that these proposals were merely suggestions, and were designed to 'feel out' Soviet leadership
on what it was willing to negotiate regarding German reunification; second, and arguably even more important,
both of these conceptions did not have the support of either the West German Chancellor or the U.S. President –
– points which also follow from the 'recently declassified diplomatic record' (so read the Bush-Kohl dialogue,
and see that they were completely unified on German reunification without any conditions or restrictions to be
placed on NATO) – – and thus both Foreign Minister Genscher and Secretary of State Baker were completely
hamstrung at the time when each made his conception known.
We could add a third key point, and that is that,
even if Gorbachev or Shevardnadze had decided to push for EITHER the Baker or Genscher Plan – – and we can
easily appreciate why no Soviet official would be either willing or able to think in terms of post-Warsaw Pact,
let alone post-Soviet, times and thus of their forthcoming Russian Federation's future relationship with NATO
– – then they would have publicly met with the same unified American-West German refusal to put conditions on
NATO that Bush & Kohl had previously agreed; so, in effect, with these two supporting an open-ended future of
NATO, any Soviet leader would have been told 'nyet' if he had sought to codify Baker's or Genscher's
conceptions into a formal agreement.
Last, on the subject of what NATO did finally agree with the Russian federation, review the text of the
NATO-Russia Founding Act of 1997, and you'll find two very nice surprises from early post-Cold War history: 1)
that NATO was quite willing to codify its plans for membership expansion, principally to reassure Federation
leadership that its planned expansion had no hostile intent whatsoever toward the Fdereation; and 2) that
Yeltsin, as Federation President, did not feel threatened in the least by NATO expansion, and he said so
publicly he didn't like that expansion, and also said so publicly, but it's very telling that he never felt
threatened by it. Furthermore, NATO still avoided stationing its forces into the Eastern part of the reunified
German state until well after the Soviet collapse.
Given the article at hand, that's all that AB should need to know about the stark differences between
Yeltsin's Federation and Putin's, and the amazing continuity between NATO's late Cold War and its early
post-Cold War position regarding its expansion plans and how this continuity fits nicely with the context of
the only major treaty to be negotiated with the Federation.
This article links to the National Security Archive's recent collection of documents which clearly demonstrates
the assurances made to Gorbachev were sourced widely among NATO members, much more so than previously
understood. The opinions expressed in, for example, the 2014 Brookings article – shared by a commentator –
which downplays the matter, are now outdated.
Sphere of influence: the argument that Russia has no right to
have opinions on regional politics, or security concerns, usually ignores major contextual information; i.e the
NATO expansion has occurred during a transformation from defensive alliance to a more assertive posture, as
seen in Serbia and Libya. It has occurred while the US has assumed a military posture based on world hegemony
and clearly stated objectives of preventing other states from ever posing a challenge to this primacy. It
occurred while arms treaties (ABM) were broken and while missile systems were introduced to the region.
Important as well to acknowledge Russia as a major nuclear power, and this policy of poking the bear, so to
speak, seems needlessly aggressive and unintelligent.
Further, the situation in Ukraine appears to have been a deliberate provocation sought by the Anglo bloc of
the NATO alliance, in concert with the more paranoid political actors of the region. A negotiated political
settlement had been reached concerning the Maidan. The subsequent coup was an expressly deliberate reaction to
prevent this settlement from going into effect. The USA, UK, and Canada provocatively determined the coup as
"legitimate", and in doing so chose to assist in the destabilization of the country. This Anglo bloc has
promoted a false and incomplete narrative of events, and stepped up a dangerous militarization of the region
justified by this false account.
This betrayal may actually get rectified but much of it is outside the hands of the EU and in the hands of
Russia (my opinion).
Thanks to US support under Trump the VISEGRAD is front and center while western Europe
takes a backseat. The neocons may want to use the VISEGRAD as a launching point for Russia but I do not think
that is Trumps agenda. The fear in Poland, Hungary, Czech and Slovak Republics is not from the US or its
warmongering anti-Russian neocons. It comes from Russia's relationship with its former satellites since they
were freed and joined EU and NATO.
All VISEGRAD nations have said they will take no more muslim or African migrants even if it means fines,
loss of aid or an exit. The stance of the VISEGRAD is expanding to Lithuania, Austria, Romania, Bulgaria and
Slovenia. This would effectively fence off much, if not all, of the land route to Europe.
Russia doesn't want African and muslim migrants either.
If Russia can create a detent with the VISEGRAD and allay their fears then Russia could diffuse much of the
need for the NATO weaponry that Russia feels threatened. At the rate Europe and Russia are depopulating, even a
small war would be lunacy.
The other thing Russia craves are goods, services, technology, etc which the VISEGRAD would gladly offer in
exchange for Russian goods and services.
Further, we have seen common ground with VISEGRAD and Russia against migrants. The VISEGRAD is willing to
stand apart from the EU if necessary. Russia may not get the VISEGRAD to leave NATO but Russia might get the
VISEGRAD to operate more independently of the EU and NATO. The fundamental point here is a simple one. The
VISEGRAD has the potential to either be a barrier to Russia or a buffer zone from the EU and NATO to Russia.
Much of this is really up to Russia's ability to allay past fears and take a new approach.
Further I don't think Trump would object. My observation of Trump is that he has more contempt than respect
for Sweden, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, etc. NATO nations that cannot control their borders and do
not maintain their 2% commitment of GDP are parasites and freeloaders to Trump. However Trump shows great
respect to the VISEGRAD for protecting its borders and NATO commitments.
Historically, its worth noting about the VISEGRAD countries. They suffered more than the mass murders and
totalitarianism of being communist satellites of the Soviet Union. Prior to that these nations were destroyed
when Russia invaded to the west and when Europe invaded to the east. The VISEGRAD does not want to be the
battle field for a Russia defending itself against NATO or NATO defending itself against Russia. The VISEGRAD
knows that they suffer and lose under either scenario. The VISEGRAD wants security guarantees from Russia and
NATO. Knowing this, Russia could reframe the entire dynamic of the VISEGRAD. It wouldn't be a full win for
Russia but if played well, then it might be just be enough for the US, VISEGRAD and Russia.
Poor Russia, a country that occupied, then annexed the Baltic States against their will.
Poor Russia, a country that banned Ukrainian language and culture, starved to depopulate it, then tried to
replace its people with Russians.
Poor Russia, the country that occupied Eastern Europe and had no compunction about rolling tanks down the
streets of Prauge when they had the audacity to want to determine their own destiny.
Poor Russia, a country that took "active measures" and annexed Crimea from Ukraine and set it's troops and
media to foment rebellion in the Donbass.
There is a good reason all these countries sought protection from repeated, constant acts of Russian
aggression against their sovereignty.
The US leads a coalition of free nations that don't want to be treated upon by the boot off Russian
oppression. After the end of the Cold War the Russians were under no threat from NATO whatsoever. Their actions
are the actions of a bully and it is a poor strategy to hide in a corner and cower. The Russians are free to
take their place as one of the most powerful members of the coalition of free nations. Instead they have
decided to embark on their current pathetic path.
In light of this, what is China to make of its concerns for spread of US forces to its Yalu border, very close
to Beijing? Assurances? Bah. They'd have to be nuts, and they are not that.
Mr Bacevich seems to think that a backroom conversation between one cabinet member of the U.S. and the leader
of the USSR constitutes some sort of binding treaty on the U.S. and NATO. This will be news to all the other
NATO countries and to Congress who admitted the Baltic States and Poland some 15 years after this friendly
chat. Indeed, news to Russia too who weren't overjoyed by NATO's expansion but recognized it as a legitimate
decision that a sovereign country can make, as Russia's defense minister in 2002, Sergei Ivanov, stated in
2002. No mention of Baker's 'promise'. Indeed, Russia had, and has, little choice to respect these choices
because they were at the time claiming the Baltic States freely joined the USSR in 41.
More broadly, this article and similar ones never explain precisely how NATO expansion has harmed or threatens
Russia or precipitated any of the difficult events of the past decade. Does anyone really suppose that if NATO
were not in Estonia the events in Georgia, Ukraine and Crimea would have unfolded differently? Can Mr Bacevich
explain what might have been different if NATO hadn't expanded? In all likelihood, if NATO hadn't expanded,
we'd all be significantly more nervous about unimpeded Russia activity in Eastern Europe post-Crimea. The EU,
already under strain from the Euro crisis, might not have survived. It's impossible to say, but it's equally
true that none of the "NATO's eastern mistake" team can ever put their finger on the harm posed by NATO's
expansion. It's always something vague, like 'Russia's legitimate zone of interest' or 'putting Russia in a
corner'. But anyone can readily see that none of these countries pose the slightest threat to Russia. Latvia is
not gearing up for an invasion of Russia despite its annexation of Abrene by the Soviets that the Russia's have
held onto. Nor is Russia in a corner; it's the largest country on Earth with enormous potential as the only
bona fide Eurasian country, with land borders on two of the largest economic zones -- the EU and China -- in the
world. Its problems are almost entirely its own doing.
Lastly, this article makes some of the historic elisions common to its genre: Russia was not invaded in WW1
unless you call Poland, Belarus and the Baltic States "Russia". This will be news to the locals. Nor did anyone
pick Gorbachev's "pocket", unless you suppose all those Eastern European peoples are nothing more than Russia's
possessions. But, to slightly expand a quote of Latvia's former President, Vaira Vike-Freiberga, "The Lord did
not put [Eastern Europeans] on Earth simply to please the Russians."
The logic of the article by A. J. Bacewich does not make any sense. What J.A.Bacewich is saying in this article
is that United States of America in 1990 effectively committed Yalta 2 through president G. H. W. Bush and the
secretary of state J. Baker. From what AJB writes in his piece it looks like the only purpose for the USA and
NATO to fight the 'cold war' was to unite Germany. Where is the logic in that kind of thinking? If uniting
Germany was the only purpose? What was the point in keeping the Germans in the framework of NATO, and NATO
itself with the USA military presence probably at the same level as during the 'cold war' apparently, according
to the logic of JAB, in perpetuity just to keep the Germans subdued and out of "troubles". The costs of that
would be probably higher for the USA that they are now. Does JAB thinks that the USSR (Russia) and obviously
Germany would stay at the same military and economic level as in 1980-90? Only very naive person could think
like that. It does not matter how you call it, USSR or Russia, sooner or later that country would bounce back
as she did with V. Putin.
It does not matter if NATO expanded or not, at this time (2017), USSR or Russia
would be back with the vengeance as she is now. The problems now of USA in global politics in general, and with
Russia in particular, was not the NATO expansion but the corrupted neoliberal economic model that the USA and
the West imposed on themselves and Russia. Russia after Yeltsin and during the time V. Putin is in power
limited the scope and the damage the neoliberal system was doing to the country, but the USA and the West
continue on the same corrupted neoliberal path up until today. Another cause of the geopolitical problems the
USA have now were and are the wars in the Middle East.
Does JAB thinks that if NATO would not expand and with Russia was left as she was in 1990 today the military
expenses for the USA would be less than they are today? I do not think so. I think probably by now you would
not have USA and NATO in Europe especially in Western Europe. What NATO expansion accomplished was prevention
of war in Europe. The problem was not the expansion of NATO, but irresponsible and shortsighted imposition of
the corrupted neoliberal economic order on the US, the West and on the Russia plus the wars in the Middle East.
To blame the current USA political problems on the expansion of NATO is not based on reality and on what
happened after 1990s, it is simply trying to stick head in the sand by those responsible for the current global
problems. After all what was the point of fighting the cold war? Would it not be cheeper, and more acceptable
for people like JAB, for the USA to cede the Europe to the USSR right after WW2 ?
Why in the world must you repeat the "nasty piece of work" mantra? Do you really believe it or is it to gain
acceptance? Or do you preface every mention of US presidents, justifiably, with the same "nasty piece of work"?
"Donald Trump has charged, not without cause, that our allies are playing us for suckers."
If the US wants to
ring Russia with bases why should't US taxpayers pay for it? DOD's budget is partly for imperial policing and
partly a regional and corporate gravy train. It has some true "defense" functions but those are very limited.
Why would Germans or the French want to pay extra taxes to protect themselves from a "threat" that if it even
exists is because of aggressive American foreign policy?
US taxpayers are being played for suckers but by their own defense department not Europeans.
Negotiating any agreement is a lengthy process, and parties cannot be bound by all offers and counter-offers
floated during discussions. What is in the actual treaty counts. If there had been a mutual agreement that NATO
would not expand, then it would have been put on paper. It was not.
Gorbachev asked for -- and got -- substantial financial help in repatriating his troops from East Germany, and
did not demand checks to NATO expansion.
Bacevich nails it again. As a Cold War veteran I couldn't agree more. The United States didn't "win" the Cold
War -- the USSR "lost" it, instead. Therein lays a huge difference. You don't kick a dog when he is down. The
mindless expansion of NATO eastward following the demise of the USSR in 1991 was stupid–anyone who knows
Russian history and geography is keenly aware of this fact. Putin, just like Trump, is trying to make his
country great again. Surprise!!!
Having the Europeans pay for their own security would end up destroying the American empire. They will want to
purchase weapons manufactured in Europe, not America, to give their own people jobs. They will need to develop
weapons that are on par with American weapons and so will commit to the necessary R&D. Their own MIC will
develop, and they will need to find reasons to use these weapons, which will require constant replacement and
upgrades.
And pretty soon Europe will return to its imperialist ways of old, with no need for America.
Given Russia's history of being invaded from the West, with Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union being the
bloodiest conflict in human history, it is remarkable to me that our government cannot understand why expanding
NATO eastward would be viewed as very alarming to the Russians.
In my opinion the best and most realistic
movie about Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union is the German made movie "Stalingrad" made in 1992 by the
production team that made "Das Boot" to commemorate the fiftieth anniversary of the bloodiest battle in human
history. I think that watching this movie is helpful in understanding the Russian psyche and why the Russians
view the West moving its military forces eastward as particularly alarming.
20 years, Americans and Europeans lied that promises not. Putin said that we were deceived, but the Europeans
smiled and continued to lie. So why now are you surprised of the rigidity of Russia's position? We tricked the
Americans and the Europeans we'll be remembered for a thousand years and give to his descendants so they always
kept the powder dry. NATO is a punitive organization and someday we will have to face. The fate you have
created.
As usual, the U.S. won the war but lost the peace. One question, though: Why are the Russians so angry about NATO expansion? Yes, it's a broken promise on our
part. Yet, that aspect of it aside, why the anger? Why are they so opposed to the expansion of a defensive
alliance -- one which they could someday join? How, exactly, does the expansion of a defensive alliance threaten
their security interests?
The classic blinkered cold war distortion. Washington never assured "Russia" of anything in 1990. The country
we now call "Russia", the Russian Federation, has existed as a sovereign state only since 26 December 1991.
Thus, by very definition, the US could not have "assured" Russia of anything before that date.
The picture
quite correctly identifies Gorbachev as the president of the Soviet Union. He was never at any time president
of Russia, which has had only two presidents since it became independent: Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin. It
is American cold war dinosaurs, who simply can't get their heads around the idea that the Soviet Union and
communism are gone forever, who are the cause of the "new cold war".
If they would stop treating the Russian
Federation as the if it were the Soviet Union and start treating as what it actually is, one of 15 successor
states to the Soviet Union, on the same basis as Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova etc., NATO
expansion would be no problem. Indeed, if US cold warriors hadn't obstructed it, Russia, Ukraine and Georgia
would have become members of the alliance at the same time. The fact that Putin is every bit as much a cold war
dinosaur as his American counterparts doesn't change that. And none of that gives the Russian Federation the
right to deny the sovereignty of any of the other successor states and, even less, to invade and annex their
territory. American cold warriors caused the problem with Putin. It is up to them to clean up the mess their
blinkered and outdated world view caused. Capitulating to Putin and arrogantly asserting the right to give away
other people's countries does not achieve that purpose.
American elites spend American treasure for their imperium, so that American elite interests take precedence,
as per Nuland's "F -- the E.U." Confoundedly, Andy omits the Ukraine putsch she midwived. He who pays the piper
calls the tune – and if a Europe still occupied by American forces as the continuation of WWII were to pay its
own money, that military occupation would shortly end, just as the withdrawal of Soviet support ended their
European satrapies' support of the Warsaw Pact.
Guys, you first confess that you have deceived us for 20 years, and then wonder why we are against NATO
enlargement? Guys, you're ohueli. Why should we trust you at all? Why should we believe that NATO is a
defensive alliance?
Re: Sal, "Why in the world must you repeat the "nasty piece of work" mantra? Do you really believe it or is it
to gain acceptance? Or do you preface every mention of US presidents, justifiably, with the same "nasty piece
of work"?
I was thinking the same thing as Sal. Almost the entire Elite Nomenklatura in Washington and Wall
Street can be considered a collective "nasty piece of work" given all of the social and economic wreckage that
they have produced both at home and abroad. Putin/Russia's excesses don't hold a candle to the catastrophes
ginned up by that crew of arrogant militarists and corrupted parasites.
Dr. Bacevich should either tone down his histrionic shibboleth's against Vladimir Putin or else expand his
target set to include the larger universe of native political-crony trash.
I'm another Cold War veteran who agrees with Mr. Pando about the article. The same people who are clamoring
about Russia denying the sovereignty of independent nations were very likely cheerleaders each time the US
tried to remove Castro, when we invaded Panama, Iraq, and bombed the Serbs in the Balkans. As for Ukraine, the
Crimea has always been mostly Russian until Khrushchev gave it away in the mid 50's to achieve some internal
political aims.
Despite the explosive growth of NATO, the Baltic nations are really not "free" because of the guarantees of
the alliance. If Putin wanted to invade them he could have them easily; stashing one brigade of US troops over
there would have only the effect of daring an American president to risk a nuclear exchange with a country able
to defend itself. If anyone thinks any of these C-in-C's would do any nuclear sabre-rattling because Russian
tanks are rolling into Talinn, I have a deed to a wonderful NY bridge for you.
Colonel Gaddafi believed the United States and refused to develop nuclear weapons. But leader of North Korea
does not want to believe the USA. What do you think, why is this?
DanJ, you don't honor even signed agreements, so who cares?
In the end it was very dumb move that completely cured most of the Russian population from giving any trust to
the West sirens. Good for the US (presumably) in the short run, very bad in the long
This links to a useful reference, but the article has its omissions and misrepresentations.
"The United
States has thereby incurred burdensome obligations without accruing any obvious benefit."
This is unadulterated BS. These satrapies are offering the US forward deployment for military assets,
possibly including first strike and decapitation weapons again – as Germany did before the reunification – as
well as basing for missile defense systems that will eventually -- if they ever work -- complement these destabilizing weapon systems. They also provide bases without which US
operations in the Middle East and the Mediterranean would be much more costly, if not difficult. These "privileges" come at substantial cost, as South Korea is in the process of recognizing.
It might be customary for the hegemony to extract a tax from its satraps, but the incessant whining is
beginning to wear.
It should also be noted that US activities in Georgia and Ukraine preceded Putin's "act of transgression".
It should further be noted that the Georgia conflict is very much an example of the erosion of international
norms that Clinton and Kohl initiated in the Balkan conflict – which Russia explicitly warned the US about.
The expansion of NATO, more often than not, did not exactly solicit full-throated endorsement from legacy
members either.
But the really important omissions here concern the main actors – Gorbachev, Baker, Bush et.al. Is it really
convincing to assume that Gorbachev was not aware of the US propensity to scrap treaties and agreements as soon
as administrations change? Maybe my perspective is distorted by the Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump "experience" of
the modern US, and actors like Reagan – whose violations of international law and norms are well known – and
Bush Sr. – who made his career by such acts – actually had a record of behaving honorably, and Gorbachev had
reason to trust their word, instead of insisting on a ratified treaty.
How likely is it that Gorbachev knew very well that Germany might be re-unified with a claim to become
"neutral" – as Stalin had once proposed – only to re-join NATO under some pretext within the decade? How
exactly was any of these "commitments" to be guaranteed between nations that did not exactly have a record of
upholding the international order and the peace at all cost?
More importantly, is there any reason to assume that Baker actually believed a single word of what he said,
or that he expected Gorbachev to believe any of it? We have to remember that this is the man who "managed"
Ronald Reagan's attempt to discuss abolition of nuclear weapons with Gorbachev. Whatever Gorbachev might have
believed, might have had to believe, or might have had to pretend to believe, it does not appear reasonable to
trust Baker's words then or later with respect to these gentlemen and their "agreements".
There is every reason to believe that Clinton did to the international order as he did to international
banking and financial industries, and that his legacy is exceeded in impact and damage only by Bush and Obama
in sins of commission (the former) and omission (the latter). There is every reason to believe that US – and
especially Democratic Party – insistence on breaking and ultimately breaking apart Russia as a project of
"national interest" is shortsighted and idiotic, and that within a context of power as described by Bismarck
and Machiavelli, it was very much in European and US interest to offer Russia a place in balance to China,
India and other emerging powers.
But this recognition does not really need an proof, claimed or real, that the US misled Gorbachev and
Russia. This may well have been a criminally fraudulent move, but more importantly, it was a criminally stupid
one, motivated by those two primal drivers of the American Prosperity gospel – shortsighted greed and willful
ignorance.
"Washington never assured 'Russia' of anything in 1990. The country we now call 'Russia', the Russian
Federation, has existed as a sovereign state only since 26 December 1991."
As an added benefit, not resorting
to the exegesis of the historical record of the various gambits performed by the great gamblers of their day
would also spare us this level of armchair litigation.
It is completely unbelievable that the Soviets (after two invasions by Germany that killed about 27 million
Soviets) would have just shrugged at the idea of NATO expanding to Poland let alone the Ukraine. The real
question is why didn't Gorbachev insist on a written treaty. There was nothing in US history that should have
made him expect honesty so why nothing in writing? I have no doubt he was lied to or manipulated but was he
really that naive or incompetent to trust the US?
Right after the collapse of the Soviet Union, I told my wife that, while the Soviets came in 'last' in the Cold
War, the US came in second-to-last. I told her that Japan won the Cold War. The Soviets made tanks, the US made
tanks and Japan made Nissans. My 1985 Nissan pickup truck still runs great and where are all the tanks today?
Mind you, this was before the collapse of the Japanese stock market.
"Poor Russia, a country that occupied, then annexed the Baltic States against their will."
Russia bought that
land from Sweden, the same as the US bought Alaska. They gave them their independence after the revolution.
All of these countries were dictatorships before the WWII and all of them voted and asked to join the USSR.
"Poor Russia, a country that banned Ukrainian language and culture, starved to depopulate it, then tried to
replace its people with Russians.
Poor Russia, the country that occupied Eastern Europe and had no compunction about rolling tanks down the
streets of Prauge when they had the audacity to want to determine their own destiny.
Poor Russia, a country that took "active measures" and annexed Crimea from Ukraine and set it's troops and
media to foment rebellion in the Donbass."
Actually, the Soviets made Ukraine, there was no any Ukraine or 'Ukrainians' before the 20th century. Also
they imposed official Ukrainization through their political and educational system. The people were losing
their jobs if they weren't using Ukrainian, there was a precise article in a criminal code.
The Crimeans voted to rejoin Russia after a violent armed coup in Kiev. That was a third referendum held in
Crimea after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
NATO troops in Baltic states, AMB system in Poland (western border of Ukraine) must not be Russia security
concern, but Russia's troops on eastern border pf Ukraine & Kaliningrad anclave-certainly is NATO concern.
Taking Kosovo from Serbia? annexation of east Jerusalem & Gollan Heights is right, returning Crimea by Russia
is wrong, USA invasion in Iraq, US arming & financing anti-Asad rebels(some are real terrorists) in Syria is
good, Russia support for separatists in East Ukraine is bad. Not keeping promoces about NATO non-expansion is
right, not keeping promice of Budapest memorandum by Russia is wrong.
In other words:"US & NATO masturbation is so good for population, and only Russia masturbation is very bad for
population".
I saw the translation of this article on a Russian site, and it's amazing. Does the United States have people
who understand that other countries also have their own national interests? Adopting this fact will eliminate
many of the problems of misunderstanding Russian politics.
The commentator above said:
"Washington never assured" Russia "of anything in 1990. The country we now call" Russia ", the Russian
Federation, has existed as a sovereign state only since December 26, 1991."
So, the Russians do not know at all that Russia is then "did not exist." START 1 was also signed by
Gorbachev, and he respected the Russian Federation.
NATO should have been disbanded along with the Warsaw Pact after 1990. What was supposed to be a defensive pact
against the USSR became an offensive war-mongering machine in control of neo-cons making war on Serbia in the
late 90s and manufacturing false-WMD claims against Iraq in the 2000s. Anyone and everyone involved in
high-command positions at NATO, including Clinton, Bush II, and Obama, should be indicted for war crimes.
James Baker could give assurances about how the president was thinking. He could not make a formal commitment.
Gorbachev knew that (or do you think he was an incompetent negotiator?). Nevertheless, the formal agreement
contained no restrictions on NATO. There was no commitment.
Mr Bacevich is better on the topic nevertheless, because he recognizes that the driver in NATO expansion was
not Bill Clinton or the Pentagon or NATO generals but Visegrad and the Baltic countries. About Visegrad, read
Joanna Gorska's _Dealing with a Juggernaut_. The Baltic states were in fact already threatened by post-Soviet
early on. TAC and the Progressives are apparently regretful that the West has been unwilling to throw these
countries to the crocodile. I prefer the attitude expressed by Strobe Talbot, in _The Russia Hand_, for
example.
NATO did not rush in admitting countries that were more than an inch east of Berlin. It practiced due
diligence. It did some unfortunate things indirectly affecting Russia and the new NATO members, first by not
limiting itself to stopping Serbian excesses in Bosnia-Hercegovina but attacking Serbia directly and sponsoring
the transfer in Kossovo to an Albanian mafia. And it abandoned restraint and good sense in speaking of
membership for Ukraine and Georgia. Russia's response was of the sort likely to make Ukrainians and Georgians
want to join NATO, but for the time being at least the issue is not alive.
The responsibility borne by the West in these matters consists mostly of its embrace of neoliberalism and
the neolib world order. "Shock therapy" gave Russia a miserable decade (the 1990s) and a distaste for Western
democracy. It also made EU membership unattractive to Ukraine. But when Yanukovych moved to join Putin's
Eurasian Union instead, the Ukrainians saw their country on the path to becoming a Russian satellite state. The
future they wanted was exemplified by Poland, which had weathered the Great Recession better than most and was
a free country in most respects. The future they saw looming was exemplified by Bielarus, ruled for a
generation by a bloody-handed thug and economically almost where it had been in the Soviet period. Victoria
Nuland and the CIA could not possibly have brought the numbers to the Maidan that actually appeared there. She
should certainly have kept a lower profile, but Yanukovych was overthrown by the Ukrainians, not by outside
agitators.
Oh, and then there is Harry Colin's assertion that "the Crimea has always been mostly Russian until
Khrushchev gave it away in the mid 50's . . . ." Well, the population there has not been mostly Ukrainian ever,
true. But always–apparently "always" now begins with the reign of Catharine II. Previously it was Greek,
Armenian, Tatar, and so on, but not Russian. Catharine sent in Russian settlers just so Mr Colin could make his
remark. What do the Tatars think of it?
On that note, I really think that my interview with Professor Richard Sakwa (Chatham House) titled "Between
the Cold War and the Cold Peace: How the West betrayed Russia" may also be of your interest.
Three current world Powers. The US, Russia, and China. Both armed to the gills as they say. Each with a
distinct model , which included starting wars if it serves their individual interest. The worrisome fact is
both Russia and China have chosen the leaders and support their intentions. We change foreign policy as often
as I change my underwear.
Not expanding NATO upon the demise of the USSR, would have been synonymous with the USA agreeing that Russia
has a right to a permanent "sphere of influence". Also, it would have revived the discredited "Enlightenment"
division of real Europe into "Europe" and "East of Europe";
At any rate, perhaps Mr. Bacevich can make his
case in Warsaw, Vilnius, Riga, Tallinn, Prague, Bratislava, Bucharest, Sofia, and also Minsk, Tbilisi, Yerevan,
and first and foremost, Kiev;
If the truth is on his side, then these peoples should see it as well, and accept their "permanent station
in life". But seriously, here is a worthwhile history lesson:
"Putin was not wrong to observe that the United States routinely exempted itself from any such [supposed post
Cold War international] norms when it perceived its own vital interests to be at stake," states Dr. Bacevich,
which suggests that there have been American foreign interventions since the end of the Cold War which have
been in American vital interests. I don't know which interventions these might have been, but Putin has
probably also observed that the U.S. feels free to intervene internationally even when its vital interests are
not at stake.
I am in favor of American Empire, as it is probably the best thing going, compared to all other possible
alternatives. However, in order to assert and enforce empire, Americans need to do the hard work of colonizing,
of actually going there to instill their way of life, their values, their language, their know-how, their
vision, their interests and control. The problem I see is that Americans are too unsure of themselves (too
lazy, too decadent, too exhausted, too weak, and too unprepared) to make the sacrifices necessary to be really
good colonizers, to be real leaders, and without this there can be no real Empire.
"Donald Trump has charged, not without cause, that our allies are playing us for suckers."
Appears we've all
but begged them to do so. Even if those allies commence paying "their fair share,"it's not clear how the US of
A benefits. We'll still do their fighting & jack up the defense funding accordingly.
& If the Trump biz career is any example, he'll happily shell out $5 of tax money for every $1 we get in
return. The NATO comic opera will not end its run even if those allies ceased playing us for suckers seconds
after this post.
"Americans need to do the hard work of colonizing, of actually going there to instill their way of life"
A
new Hard Core SJW Peace Corps! That's the ticket. Unpaid interns for corporate consumerist capitalism! It's gonna be a hard sell, so hardball will be required. The full faith and credit of the United States
Armed Forces, or less overt, the CIA and regime change?
"The worrisome fact is both Russia and China have chosen the leaders and support their intentions. We change
foreign policy as often as I change my underwear."
Deep State's durable foreign policy, which is always the
de facto policy, is remarkably resilient no matter which political party is elected to fill the chairs.
Elections and the will of the voters have virtually no influence on it, except in the tenor of the propaganda.
The designated enemies remain designated, no matter what any politician promises to get votes.
"I am in favor of American Empire, as it is probably the best thing going"
This sentiment is only vicarious,
unless you are of the tiny minority of Americans who benefit from the conflicts and deaths necessary to try to
establish rule of one country's economic elites by subjugating every other nation's people.
Even so, only those bribed in dollars in foreign satrapies to be puppet leaders, would agree that it is the
best of all possible worlds to be dominated by a foreign nation.
I tend to agree with the critics of this article. Firstly was a promise allegedly made to Gorbachev by the
Administration of Bush Senior(Republican) somehow binding on that of Bill Clinton(Democrat) and their
successors (Bush Junior, Obama and Trump)? I think NOT!
Secondly the issue should be WHAT DO the former Soviet Republics and peoples of Eastern Europe want? If they
wish to join NATO, then surely that is their right as free and independent sovereign states. Whether the
Kremlin likes or lumps it is neither here or there. Contrary to what the likes of Nigel Farage (in my own
country) may think, Eastern Europe is NOT some kind of dependency of Muscovy's in perpetuity!
This article is fully consistent with what my family in Germany holds. NATO is needed to control a revival of
dangerous German nationalism and relationships with Russia must be peaceful.
Bacevich seems to have missed Gorbachev's denial that there were any promises made on NATO expansion, and
second, such commitments would have been to a country that ceased to exist prior to NATO expansion. Or does he
think Europe still has commitments to the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
I am amazed at all of the commenters who think expanding NATO up to the borders of Russia is a great idea. How
would you like for Russia to form a military alliance with Mexico and for the Russian military to be conducting
exercises along our southern border with Mexico?
If Russia attacks a member of NATO along its border that
means that the US is at war with Russia which means a draft. Would any of the people who think NATO expansion
is a great idea be willing to fight the Russians over Eastern Europe or have a member of their family go and
fight?
Fighting the Russians on their own turf didn't work out to well for Napoleon and Hitler and I don't think it
would work out for us too well either. We haven't been in a major war since World War 2 and I don't think our
general population is ready for a big war with Russia.
The "safe space" generation is going to have a hard time fighting in the Russian winter. To think otherwise
is foolhardy.
It is clear that Bacevich started with a political conclusion -- that Russia's sphere of influence encompasses
all of Eastern Europe -- and then tried to muster historical/legal arguments to support that conclusion.
In the process, he has distorted history and left out anything that damages his conclusion.
Among them:
The Russo-Ukraine border treaty of November 1990, signed by Yeltsin, guaranteed the existing borders between
Russia and Ukraine;
The Minsk Agreement. December 8, 1991,obligated "The high contracting parties (Russia/Ukraine/Belarus) [to]
recognize and respect one another's territorial integrity and the inviolability of existing borders within the
Commonwealth."
The Russian – Ukrainian Friendship Treaty, Ratified in 1998 by Ukraine and 1999 by
Russia, fixed the principle of strategic partnership, the recognition of the inviolability of existing borders,
respect for territorial integrity.
Putin later affirmed that "Every nation has an inalienable, sovereign right to its own path of development
Russia always has and always will respect that. This applies fully to Ukraine, the brotherly Ukrainian nation."
There were also obligations under the COE, the OSCE and the UN Charter. Russia ignored all of those in
forcibly annexing Crimea.
Lavrov later lied about the Budapest Memorandum, claiming it contained only one obligation, not to use
nuclear weapons.
Fair points, ScottA, but let's clarify your position:
(a) Should NATO defend Western Europe, if it is ever
attacked by Russia? Alternately, are the people of Eastern Europe intrinsically different from Western
Europeans? Retreating to the position that such an attack is unlikely is an evasion – so, da or nyet?
(b) It is true that Russia was attacked by Napoleon, and the USSR, while an ally of Nazi Germany, was then
betrayed and attacked by Hitler. Does this give Russia today a right to a permanent sphere of influence in
Eastern Europe? Da or nyet?
(c) If da, how would a Westerner make that case to Eastern Europeans? Please give it a try;
In my opinion, both NATO in the west and China's New Silk Roads (One Belt and One Road Initiative) in the
east and south, exert a calming influence on any imperial stirrings of the Rulers of Muscovy. I also believe
that the majority of the Russian people would prefer a peaceful and prosperous Russia, over momentary euphorias
over this or that conquest;
What I admire about Russia is her spiritual and cultural powerhouse: Orthodox Liturgy and architecture,
icons, chants, Sugar Plum Fairies, Brothers Karamazov, fairy tales – to mention just a random fraction of the
Russian treasure. Imperialism, nyet.
@Art
Deco The way I see it "an ocean of blood" in Iraq was unleashed following US invasion,
and it included plenty of American blood. Young healthy American men lost their lifes in
Iraq, lost their their bodyparts (arms, legs, their nuts), lost their sanity, and as an
American I can't imagine that you were pleased about that. Certainly, most of your
countrymen didn't feel this way, they didn't feel this war was worth it for the US.
We had no treaty commitments with either Serbia or Iraq
The treaty commitment in question was with almost the entire rest of the world, namely
when your country entirely voluntarily signed up to a commitment to "refrain in their
international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity
or political independence of any state". If your country had retained the slightest trace
of integrity and self-respect it would at least have had the decency to withdraw from
membership of the the UN when it chose to breach those treaty commitments.
And if anything Americans make their own shamelessness worse when they fabricate
imaginary pretexts for weaselling out of their country's commitment, such as a wholly
imaginary entitlement for them to decide for themselves when there is a "humanitarian"
justification for doing so, or make up wholesale fantasy allegations about "weapons of mass
destruction" that even if true wouldn't justify war.
An entire nation state behaving like a lying '60s hippy or a shamelessly dishonest
aggressor.
I'm sure you're proud.
and both places had it coming.
A straightforward confession of lawless rogue state behaviour, basically.
Do you actually think somehow you are improving your country's position with such
arguments? Better for a real American patriot to just stop digging and keep sheepishly
quiet about the past three decades of foreign policy.
@reiner
Tor The fact is neither did Crimeans really want to join Russia (polls didn't show
that), and yet our re-unification has been a huge success! I honestly can't think of good
reason, why we can't go futher.
@Felix
Keverich"an ocean of blood" in Iraq was unleashed following US invasion,
By various and sundry Sunni insurgents, who continue to distort and disfigure life in
the provinces where they have a critical mass of the population. The Kurdish and Shia
provinces are quiet.
Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more
anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media.
There seems no evident reason to look for another explanation for the drops in
pro-American sentiment. They seem eminently justified by the US's behaviour over the period
1990-date and perfectly unsurprising.
What needs to be explained is not the sustained low opinion after 2014 but rather the
remarkable recoveries after 1999, 2003 and 2008.
In the west, opinion of the US was managed upwards with the Obama presidency because he
fitted so well with US sphere establishment antiracist and leftist dogmas that he had
almost universally positive (even hagiographic) mainstream media coverage throughout the US
sphere, but with Trump opinions of the US are mostly back down where Bush II left them. It
seems unlikely the Russian media would have been as sycophantically pro-Obama merely for
his blackness and Democrat-ness, though, and of course he wasn't around anyway in 2000 and
in 2004.
It's understandable that following a particular instance of particularly bad US
behaviour (such as Kosovo or Iraq) opinion of the US in US sphere states would dip
dramatically (as it did, mostly) and then recover slowly to roughly its long term mean,
because those crimes were not directed against the interests of US sphere states or elites.
But they very much were targeted at Russia or its interests and disadvantageous to Russia
and its global status. Russians had few excuses for failing to see that the US was an
implacable and dangerous enemy from at least Kosovo onward, and yet they repeatedly chose
to pretend to themselves that it wasn't.
This would mean, as I suspect, that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin
loosens its tight grip of the media.
Why are you assuming that the pendulum would swing back?
The Kremlin is still playing nice with Western "partners".
The alternative does not have to be more pro-American.
@Art
Deco As I recall the Sunnies and Shias killed and disfigured American servicemen
together, which caused Americans to elect Obama and run away from the country. And now
these Shia communities vote for pro-Iran politicians, who gradually turn Iraq into Iranian
puppet -- is this why American soldiers died?
C'mon, Iraq invasion was a disaster for the US whichever way you look at it. That's what
happens when you start a war for the wrong reasons.
@reiner
Tor Correction. It's the elites that don't want to join Russia. And the reason they
don't is because the West gives them goodies for being anti-Russian. This kind of strategy
worked pretty well so far (for the West) in Eastern Europe and it will continue to work for
some time yet. But not forever, not in Ukraine and Belorussia.
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were
taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian. The rulers of Ukraine
and, to a much lesser degree, Belorussia are trying to erect cultural barriers between
themselves and Russia. Good luck with that, in the 21st century. It's more likely the
culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the world. Eventually it will
tell.
Now, the question is if Russians will even want Ukraine back. This is not so clear.
@Art
Deco That's just dumb. The reasons officially given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 --
Saddam's regime hiding weapons of mass destruction and being an intolerable threat to the
outside world -- were a transparently false pretext for war, and that was clearly
discernible at the time. Saddam's regime was extremely brutal and increasingly Islamic or
even Islamist in character, but by 2003 it wasn't a serious threat to anyone outside Iraq
anymore the worst thing it did was send money to the families of Palestinian suicide
bombers (bad, but hardly an existential threat). Admittedly there was the question how to
deal with his regime in coming years, whether to eventually relax sanctions or to keep them
in place for the foreseeable future. But there was no urgent need to invade Iraq that was
purely a war of choice which the US started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region
according to its own preferences. If you don't understand why many people find that rather
questionable, it's you who needs to get out more.
What needs to be explained is not the sustained low opinion after 2014 but rather the
remarkable recoveries after 1999, 2003 and 2008.
Yugoslavia and Iraq were not that close to Russia and Russian elite was still pushing
for Integration into West at that time. After 2008, "Reset" and Obama happened.
It seems unlikely the Russian media would have been as sycophantically pro-Obama
merely for his blackness and Democrat-ness, though, and of course he wasn't around anyway
in 2000 and in 2004.
Keep in mind that Obama's opponent in 2008 was McCain, that McCain.
Just like Trump, Obama seemed like the lesser evil and not to blame for previous
conflicts.
@Art
Deco Hungary joined NATO a few days (weeks? can't remember) before the start of the
Kosovo-related bombardment of Serbia. I attended university in a city in the south of
Hungary, close to the Serbian border. I could see the NATO planes flying by above us every
night when going home from a bar or club (both of which I frequented a lot).
I was a staunch Atlanticist at the time, and I believed all the propaganda about the
supposed genocide which later turned out not to have gone through the formality of actually
taking place. But it was never properly reported as the scandal it was -- it was claimed
that the Serbs were murdering tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians, but
it never happened. They might have killed a few hundred, at worst a few thousand civilians,
but that's different from what the propaganda claimed at the time. I only found out that
there was no genocide of Albanians in Kosovo when I searched the internet for it some time
after the Iraq invasion. By that time I was no longer an Atlanticist. Most people are
totally unaware that there was any lying going on while selling us the war.
Yes. It was the thing which opened my eyes and made me question some previous policies,
especially the bombardment of Serbia. I wasn't any longer comfortable of being in NATO,
especially since it started to get obvious that Hungarian elites (at least the leftists
among them) used our membership to dismantle our military and use the savings on handouts
for their electorate, or -- worse -- outright steal it. While it increasingly looked like
NATO wasn't really protecting our interests, since our enemies were mostly our neighbors
(some of them). This kind of false safety didn't feel alright.
@reiner
Tor "Yes. It was the thing which opened my eyes"
Same for me. I was 15 during the Kosovo war and believed NATO's narrative, couldn't
understand how anybody could be against the war, given previous Serb atrocities during the
Bosnian war it seemed to make sense. And after 9/11 I was very pro-US, e.g. I argued
vehemently with a stupid leftie teacher who was against the Afghanistan war (and I still
believe that war was justified, so I don't think I'm just some mindless anti-American
fool). But Iraq was just too much, too much obvious lying and those lies were so stupid it
was hard not to feel that there was something deeply wrong with a large part of the
American public if they were gullible enough to believe such nonsense. At least for me it
was a real turning point in the evolution of my political views.
Russians know more about these things than you do. The vast majority of us do not
regard Belarus and Ukraine as part of
"заграница" -- foreign countries.
Ukrainians and in particular Belorussians are simply variants of us, just like regional
differences exist between the Russians in Siberia and Kuban'.
The last two sentences contradict the first.
Russians tend to be rather ignorant of Ukrainians, and you are no different.
Afghanistan war (and I still believe that war was justified
Destroying the Taliban government, yes. Building "democracy" is just stupid, though.
They should've quickly left after the initial victory and let the Afghans to just eat each
other with Stroganoff sauce if they so wished. It's not our business.
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were
taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.
This is for them to decide, not for you.
It's more likely the culture will further homogenize, as is the trend anywhere in the
world.
Yeah, the culture homogenizes around the world, into global Hollywood corporate culture.
In the long there, "traditional Russian culture" is as doomed as "traditional Ukrainian
culture" and "traditional American culture" if there is anything left of it.
Polling by the Razumkov Centre in 2008 found that 63.8% of Crimeans (76% of Russians,
55% of Ukrainians, and 14% of Crimean Tatars, respectively) would like Crimea to secede
from Ukraine and join Russia and 53.8% would like to preserve its current status, but
with expanded powers and rights . A poll by the International Republican Institute in May
2013 found that 53% wanted "Autonomy in Ukraine (as today)", 12% were for "Crimean Tatar
autonomy within Ukraine", 2% for "Common oblast of Ukraine" and 23% voted for "Crimea
should be separated and given to Russia".
The takeaway is that Crimeans were satisfied being part of Ukraine as long as Ukraine
had an ethnic Russian, generally pro-Russian president like Yanukovich in charge (2013
poll), but preferred being part of Russia to being part of a Ukrainian state run by
Ukrainians (2008 poll, post-Maidan).
That's because the population of these places is Russian (no matter what they were
taught to call themselves by the Commies.) Their culture is Russian.
Believer of Russian nationalist fairytales tells Russian nationalist fairytales. You
managed to fit 3 of them into 2 sentences, good job.
@DFH
Oh, Western Europe does not mind Slav/Muslim immigrants.
In fact, they love them.
They would not have agreed for other reasons without admitting them in public.
As I recall the Sunnies and Shias killed and disfigured American servicemen
together,
The amusing thing is that American apologists for their country's military
interventionism like Art Deco more usually spend their time heaping all the blame on Iran
and the Shia. As well as internet opinionators, that incudes some of the most senior US
military figures like obsessively anti-Iranian SecDef James Mattis:
That's something that ought to seriously concern anyone with a rational view of world
affairs.
which caused Americans to elect Obama and run away from the country.
In fact the Americans had already admitted defeat and agreed to pull out before Obama
took office. Bush II signed the withdrawal agreement on 14th December 2008. After that, US
forces in Iraq were arguably no longer occupiers and were de jure as well as de facto
present on the sufferance of the Iraqi government. The US regime had clearly hoped to have
an Iraqi collaboration government for the long term, as a base from which to attack Iran,
but the long Iraqi sunni and shia resistances scuppered that idea. The sunnis had fought
hard, but were mostly defeated and many of them ended up collaborating with the US
occupiers, as indeed had much of the shia, for entirely understandable reasons in both
cases.
Military occupations are morally complicated like that.
@AP I
was referring specifically to Russian attitudes about Ukrainians. I know that among
Ukrainians themselves, there is quite the confusion on this subject.
@Felix
KeverichAs I recall the Sunnies and Shias killed and disfigured American servicemen
together, which caused Americans to elect Obama and run away from the country. And now
these Shia communities vote for pro-Iran politicians, who gradually turn Iraq into Iranian
puppet -- is this why American soldiers died?
Your memory is bad. The three Kurdish provinces never suffered much. Political violence
in the Shia provinces was finally suppressed over a series of months in late 2007 and early
2008. It was also contained to a degree in the six provinces with Sunnis. And that is how
matters remained for six years. ISIS was active in those provinces which have had public
order problems consistently since 2003.
Iran has influence in Iraq. It is an 'Iranian' puppet only when unzdwellers require
rhetorical flourishes.
@Mitleser
Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of
competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.
I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the US
even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach after
9/11, though not so much after Iraq.
But I have been told by Russians who ought to have some knowledge of these things that
Putin and the wider regime were not so naïve even back in the late 1990s, so the case
can be made both ways.
reclaiming Belarus and Ukraine is absolutely essential to have a country, we could all
proudly call 'home' -- an actual Russian nation-state.
In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so
Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce
the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with
coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime. Obviously there will have to be a
militarized occupation regime and prison camps and a network of informants. A proud
home.
Again, what really matters here is not the size of the country, it's that all the land
that's historically Russian should be fully within the borders of this country.
Baltics were Russian longer than Ukraine. Central Poland became Russian at the same time
as did half of Ukraine. According to the 1897 census, there were about as many Great
Russian speakers in Kiev governate as in Warsaw. Take the Baltics and Warsaw back too?
No, it's just an argument you're not used to having to answer.
The reasons officially given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 -- Saddam's regime
hiding weapons of mass destruction and being an intolerable threat to the outside world --
were a transparently false pretext for war, and that was clearly discernible at the
time.
It was nothing of the kind. That was on the list of concerns Bush had. Bush's trilemmas
don't go away just because Eurotrash strike poses and have impoverished imaginations.
@AP
These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them.
These polls are meaningless : most ordinary people go about their daily lives never
thinking about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a
meaningless answer.
I'm sure, support for reunification will go up in Belarus, if the Kremlin shows some
leadership on this issue. We will find enough people willing to work with us, the rest will
just have to accept the new reality and go about their daily lifes as usual.
The situation in Ukraine is different, it differs wildly by region and will require us
to modify our approach.
@German_readerUS started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its own
preferences.
It did nothing of the kind. It ejected two governments for reasons of state. One we'd
been a state of belligerency with for 12 years, the other was responsible for a gruesome
casus belli. Now, having done that, we needed to put in place a new government. There was
no better alternative means of so doing than electoral contests.
@inertialYes, of course. Just don't assume they will decide the way you think.
They've had ample opportunity over a period of 26 years to make the decision you favor.
It hasn't happened, and there's no reason to fancy they'll be more amenable a decade from
now.
How do you see this happening? Why would the Kremlin give up its control of the media?
These people are smart enough to understand that whoever controls the media controls
public opinion.
They are indeed, but my assumption is that Russia's present elite is, for the most part,
corruptible. Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense
pressure -- carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make
foreign money pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive
coverage and more positive views of the West. Only a few days ago, we learnt that
Washington ruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would
preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you
about the Western elite's plan for Russia?
Were we defeated, Iraq would be ruled by the Ba'ath Party or networks of Sunni
tribesman. It is not. This isn't that difficult Randal.
Well this is an old chestnut that is really just an attempt to abuse definitions of
victory and defeat on your part.
The US invasion of Iraq itself was initially a military success. It ended in complete
military victory over the Iraqi regime and nation, the complete surrender of the Iraqi
military and the occupation of the country.
However, the US regime's wider war aims were not achieved because they were unable to
impose a collaboration government and use the country as a base for further projection of
US power in the ME (primarily against Iran, on behalf of Israel), and the overall result of
the war and the subsequent occupation was catastrophic for any honest assessment of
American national interests (as opposed to the interests of the lobbies manipulating US
regime policy). The costs were significant, the reputational damage was also significant,
and the overall result was to replace a contained and essentially broken opponent with
vigorous sunni jihadist forces together with a resurgent Iran unwilling to kowtow to the US
as most ME states are.
So the best honest assessment is that the US was defeated in Iraq, despite an initial
military victory.
The amusing thing is that American apologists for their country's military
interventionism like Art Deco more usually spend their time heaping all the blame on Iran
and the Shia. As well as internet opinionators, that incudes some of the most senior
US military figures like obsessively anti-Iranian SecDef James Mattis
I suspect the reason this happens is because ambitious American officers know that
hating Iran (hating enemies of Israel in general) is what gets you promoted. It wasn't an
accident that James Mattis was appointed Secretary of Defense -- he is Bill Kristol's
favourite.
Another possibility is that the change since 2014 is rather the result of more
anti-American reporting in Russia's state-owned media. This would mean, as I suspect,
that the pendulum will swing back once the Kremlin loosens its tight grip of the
media.
Definitely no
American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the Russians
that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost nothing.
@Art
Deco US military is still butthurt over the Iran's support for Shia militias, targeting
US troops during Iraq occupation. Clearly, the Shias hurt them a lot, and it was very
unexpected for the US, because Americans actually brought Shias into power.
Fair points, though you seem to concede to the Russian elites a significant degree of
competence at managing public opinion, in 2000 and in 2004.
I am just taking into account that the early 00s were right after the 1990s when
pro-Americanism was at its peak in Russia. Yugoslavia and Iraq were too distant too
alienate the majority permanently.
I was under the impression that Putin personally was still quite naïve about the
US even after Kosovo, which partly accounts for his rather desperately helpful approach
after 9/11, though not so much after Iraq.
Why do you think did he suggest joining NATO as an option?
Not because NATO are "good guys", but because it would ensure that Russia has a voice that
cannot be ignored. After all, the Kosovo War showed the limits of the UNSC and by extension
of Russia's voice in the unipolar world.
@Art
Deco Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden
weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist in 2003. Your statement that this was merely
one item "on the list of the concerns" Bush had, amounts to an admission that this was
merely a pretext and that the real object of the war was a political reordering of the
region according to US preferences (which of course backfired given that the Iraq war
increased Iran's power and status).
Calling me "Eurotrash" oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the
responsible adults dealing with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor
appeasement, are free riders on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a
thousand times before, it's all very unoriginal by now.
Destroying the Taliban government, yes. Building "democracy" is just stupid, though.
They should've quickly left after the initial victory and let the Afghans to just eat
each other with Stroganoff sauce if they so wished. It's not our business.
In fact destroying the Taliban government was both illegal and foolish (but the latter
was by far the more important). It seems clear now the Taliban were quite willing to hand
bin Laden over for trial in a third party country, and pretty clearly either had had no
clue what he had been planning or were crapping themselves at what he had achieved. Bush
declined that offer because he had an urgent political need to be seen to be kicking some
foreign ass in order to appease American shame.
The illegality is not a particularly big deal in the case of Afghanistan because it's
clear that in the post-9/11 context the US could easily have gotten UNSC authorisation for
the attack and made it legal. Bush II deliberately declined to do so precisely in order to
make the point that the US (in Americans' view) is above petty details of international law
and its own treaty commitments. A rogue state, in other words.
But an attack on Afghanistan was unnecessary and foolish (for genuine American national
interests, that is, not for the self-interested lobbies driving policy obviously), as the
astronomical ongoing costs have demonstrated. A trial of bin Laden would have been highly
informative (and some would argue that was why the US regime was not interested in such a
thing), and would if nothing else have brought him out into the open. Yes, he would have
had the opportunity to grandstand, but if the US were really such an innocent victim of
unprovoked aggression why would the US have anything to fear from that? The whole world,
pretty much, was on the US's side after 9/11.
The US could have treated terrorism as what it is, after 9/11 -- a criminal matter. It
chose instead to make it a military matter, because that suited the various lobbies seeking
to benefit from a more militarised and aggressive US foreign policy. The result of a US
attack on the government of (most of) Afghanistan would always have been either a chaotic
jihadi-riddled anarchy in Afghanistan worse than the Taliban-controlled regime that existed
in 2001, or a US-backed regime trying to hold the lid down on the jihadists, that the US
would have to prop up forever. And so indeed it came to pass.
Putin will be gone before 2024, and his successor will be under immense pressure --
carrot and stick -- to deregulate Russia's media landscape, which will make foreign money
pour into Russian media outlets, which will in turn lead to more positive coverage and
more positive views of the West.
There is no reason to assume that West will offer the Russian elite enough carrot to
deregulate the Russian media order and the stick is just more reason not to do it and to
retain control.
What does this tell you about the Western elite's plan for Russia?
And you think that people in Russian elite are not aware of it?
In which 25 million or so Ukrainians actively resist you, and another 5 million or so
Ukrainians plus a few million Belarusians nonviolently resent your rule. You will reduce
the cities or parts of them to something like Aleppo, and rebuild them (perhaps with
coerced local labor) while under a sanctions regime.
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around 70.000
-- does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend itself?
On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority -- they
stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in Donbass. A
typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university educated
white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist" -- these are
not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare, they will just flee (like
they already fled from Donbass).
In the west, opinion of the US was managed upwards with the Obama presidency because
he fitted so well with US sphere establishment antiracist and leftist dogmas that he had
almost universally positive (even hagiographic) mainstream media coverage throughout the
US sphere, but with Trump opinions of the US are mostly back down where Bush II left
them.
I agree with most of this, but you leave out precisely why public opinion shifts.
My, rather cynical, view is that media is by far the main driver in shifting public views,
and so whoever gives the media marching orders is the Pied Piper here.
An example close to home was the consternation among some of my conservative friends
over the events Charlottesville. They knew nothing about the American alt-right, and still
less about the context of what happened that day, yet they still spoke of what a disgrace
it was for Trump not to distance himself from these deplorables. This was, of course, fully
the making of Swedish media. The 1996 Presidential Election campaign suggests that the
Russian public is no less suggestible, and so does Russian (and Ukrainian) opinions on the
crisis in the Donbass.
@Swedish
Familyruled out signing a non-interference agreement with Moscow since it would
preclude Washington from meddling in Russia's internal affairs. What does this tell you
about the Western elite's plan for Russia?
It tells me the reporters are confused or you are. There is no 'agreement' that will
prevent 'Russia' from 'meddling' in American political life or the converse. The utility of
agreements is that they make understandings between nations more precise and incorporate
triggers which provide signals to one party or the other as to when the deal is off.
@inertial
Soviets and Soviet Union were always in awe of America. You could see it in
"between-the-lines" of the texts of the so-called anti-imperialist, anti-American Soviet
propaganda. It was about catching up with American in steel production and TV sets
ownership and so on. American was the ultimate goal and people did not think of American as
an enemy.
Then there is the fact that Bolsheviks and Soviet Union owed a lot to America though
this knowledge was not commonly known. Perhaps one should take look at these hidden
connections to see what was the real mechanism bending the plug being pulled off the USSR.
There might be even an analogy to South Africa but that is another story.
@German_readerOfficial justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden
weapons of mass destruction
No, that's what you noticed in an amongst everything else being discussed by officials
and in the papers at the time.
which didn't exist in 2003.
It's a reasonable inference the stockpiles were largely destroyed. To what extent they
were able to ship stockpiles to co-operating third parties is not altogether certain. You
know the stockpiles were largely destroyed because . we were occupying the country
.
Two powerful countries beside one another are natural enemies, they can never be friends
until one has been relegated by defeat. Britain and France were enemies until France became
too weak to present a threat, then Britain's enemy was Germany (it still is, Brexit is
another Dunkirk with the UK realising it cannot compete with Germany on the continent).
Russia cannot be a friend of China against the US until Russia has been relegated in the
way France has been. France has irrecoverably given up control of its currency, they are
relegated to Germany's sidekick.
China is like Bitcoin. The smart money (Google) is going there. Received wisdom in the
US keeps expecting China's economic growth to slow down but it isn't going to happen. When
it becomes clear that the US is going to be overtaken, America will try and slow down
China's economic growth, that will be Russia's opportunity.
Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden
weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist in 2003.
It was one of many reasons. You don't set a guy on Death Row free just because one of
the charges didn't stick. The biggest reason was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, which should
have resulted in his removal from power. We settled on a truce because George HW Bush did
not want to pay the price, and the (mostly-Sunni) Arab coalition members did not want (1) a
democracy in Iraq and (2) a Shiite-dominated Iraq. Bush's son ended up footing the
political bill for that piece of unfinished business. The lesson is that you can delay
paying the piper, but the bill always comes due.
American propaganda (itself without the help of Putin) were able to convince the
Russians that America is the enemy. Propaganda of Putin to this could add almost
nothing.
Being Russian, you would be in a better position than I am to comment on this, but the
obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the Russian
public and for what purpose? This article might hold the answer:
oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the responsible adults
dealing with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor appeasement, are
free riders on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a thousand times
before, it's all very unoriginal by now.
No, I'm a fat middle aged man who thinks most of what people say on political topics is
some species of self-congratulation. And a great deal of it is perverse. The two phenomena
are symbiotic. And, of course, I'm unimpressed with kvetching foreigners. Kvetching
Europeans might ask where is the evidence that they with their own skills and resources can
improve some situation using methods which differ from those we have applied and
kvetching Latin Americans can quit sticking the bill for their unhappy histories with Uncle
Sam, and kvetching Arabs can at least take responsibility for something rather than
projecting it on some wire-pulling other (Jews, Americans, conspiracy x).
Do they have one more soldier at their command and one more piece of equipment because
we had troops in Iraq?
Well, according to the likes of Mattis they certainly do. Have you never heard of the
Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), a large faction of which reportedly swear
allegiance directly to Khamenei.
Is that "victory" for you?
An of course they now have a direct land route to Hezbollah, to make it easier for them
to assist that national defence militia to deter further Israeli attacks. That's something
they never could have had when Saddam was in charge of Iraq.
Is that "victory" for you?
And they don't have to worry about their western neighbour invading them with US backing
again.
These polls vary greatly from time to time and depending on the group conducting them.
These polls are meaningless: most ordinary people go about their daily lives never
thinking about that kind of issues, when suddenly prompted by a pollster they give a
meaningless answer.
So according to you when hundreds or thousands of people are asked a question they are
not prepared for, their collective answer is meaningless and does not indicate their
preference?
So it's a total coincidence that when Ukraine was ruled by Ukrainians most Crimeans
preferred to join Russia, when Ukraine was ruled by a Russian, Crimeans were satisfied
within Ukraine but when Ukrainian nationalists came to power Crimeans again preferred being
part of Russia?
Are all political polls also meaningless according to you, or just ones that contradict
your idealistic views?
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around
70.000 -- does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend
itself?
In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of fear
that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder. (I'm not sure "draft" is the
word I'm looking for. My understanding is that they are temporarily exempt from military
service if they study at university or have good jobs.)
@RandalWell, according to the likes of Mattis they certainly do. Have you never heard of the
Iraqi Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMU), a large faction of which reportedly swear
allegiance directly to Khamenei.
You can get away with more by using the prefix 'there has even been speculation'/
An of course they now have a direct land route to Hezbollah, to make it easier for
them to assist that national defence militia to deter further Israeli attacks. That's
something they never could have had when Saddam was in charge of Iraq.
They've been supplying Hezbollah for 35 years.
And they don't have to worry about their western neighbour invading them with US
backing again.
Their western neighbor never invaded them 'with U.S. backing'. During the latter half of
the Iraq war, Iraq restored diplomatic relations with the United States and received some
agricultural credits and other odds and ends.
Iran will be under threat from their western neighbor should they have something that
neighbor wishes to forcibly seize.
Bush's son ended up footing the political bill for that piece of unfinished
business.
No, Bush II chose to invade Iraq entirely voluntarily. There was no good reason to do
so, and the very good reasons why his father had sensibly chosen not to invade still
largely applied (even more so in some cases, given Iraq's even weaker state).
The lesson is that you can delay paying the piper, but the bill always comes due.
This is of course self-serving fantasy. The Russians told you there was no need to
invade Iraq. The Germans told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The French told you
there was no need to invade Iraq. The Turks told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The
sensible British told you there was no need to invade Iraq, but for some reason you
preferred to listen to the words of the staring-eyed sycophant who happened to be Prime
Minister at the time, instead.
More fool the Yanks. Most everyone else honest on the topic was giving you sensible
advice. Bush II (whose incompetence is now generally accepted) chose to ignore that advice,
and committed what is generally now regarded as the most egregious example of a foreign
policy blunder since Vietnam at least, and probably since Suez, and will likely be taught
as such around the world (including in the US, once the partisan apologists have given up
trying to rationalise it) for generations to come.
@SeanReceived wisdom in the US keeps expecting China's economic growth to slow down but it
isn't going to happen. When it becomes clear that the US is going to be overtaken, America
will try and slow down China's economic growth, that will be Russia's opportunity.
but the obvious counter to that line is who channeled this American propaganda to the
Russian public and for what purpose?
It is known -- the minions of Putin translated into Russian language American (and
European) propaganda, and putting it on the website http://inosmi.ru/ .
The Americans also try: there is a special "Radio Liberty" that 24-hour broadcasts (in
Russian) hate speech against the Russian.
But it only speeds up the process (which will happen anyway) .
For the last four years, Iran was shipping weapons and ammunition to the Syrian Arab
Army (SAA) and Hezbollah through an air route. This method allowed Israel to identify,
track and target Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah easily, as only few cargo airplanes
land in Syrian airports every day.
However, now Israel will be incapable of identifying any Iranian shipment on the new
ground route, as it will be used by thousands of Iraq and Syrian companies on daily basis
in the upcoming months. Experts believe that this will give Hezbollah and the SAA a huge
advantage over Israel and will allow Iran to increase its supplies to its allies.
@Art
Deco US elites and media are constantly freaking out about some Iranian "empire"
supposedly being created and threatening US allies in the mideast since you seem to put
great trust in their credibility, shouldn't that concern you? Personally I think those
fears are exaggerated, but how can it be denied that Iran's influence has increased a lot
in recent years and that the removal of Saddam's regime facilitated that development?
Iranian revolutionary guards and Iranian-backed Shia militias operate in Iraq, the Iraqi
government maintains close ties to Iran, and Iran is also an active participant in the
Syrian civil war would that have been conceivable like this before 2003?
Why do you think did he suggest joining NATO as an option?
Not because NATO are "good guys", but because it would ensure that Russia has a voice
that cannot be ignored. After all, the Kosovo War showed the limits of the UNSC and by
extension of Russia's voice in the unipolar world.
Well you have to wonder if he was just trolling the Americans, or if he was really
naïve enough to expect a serious response.
This is a fantasy. Look, the effective size of Ukrainian army right now is around
70.000 -- does this look like a strong, united nation willing and able to defend
itself?
It was about 50,000 in 2014, about 200,000-250,000 now.
Polish military has 105,000 personnel. Poland also not united or willing to defend
itself?
On the left side of the Dnieper truly crazy svidomy types is a small minority -- they
stand out from the crowd, can be easily identified and neutralised just like in
Donbass
Avakov, Poroshenko's interior minister and sponsor of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion, in
2010 got 48% of the vote in Kharkiv's mayoral race in 2010 when he ran as the "Orange"
candidate. In 2012 election about 30% of Kharkiv oblast voters chose nationalist
candidates, vs. about 10% in Donetsk oblast. Vkontakte, a good source for judging youth
attitudes, was split 50/50 between pro-Maidan and anti-Maidan in Kharkiv (IIRC it was 80/20
anti-Maidan winning in Donetsk). Kharkiv is just like Donbas, right?
A typical Ukrainian nationalist east of Dnieper is a business owner, university
educated white collar professional, a student, a journalist, "human rights activist"
Football hooligans in these places are also Ukrainian nationalists. Azov battalion and
Right Sector are both based in Eastern Ukraine.
Here is how Azov started:
The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect
82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at
least until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014,
during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in
Kharkiv, "Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in
Kharkiv and served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect
82″ there was formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]
Here is Azov battalion commander-turned-Kiev oblast police chief, Kharkiv native Vadim
Troyan:
Does he look like an intellectual to you? Before Maidan he was a cop.
these are not the kind of individuals, who will engage in guerilla warfare,
On the contrary, they will probably dig in while seeking cover in urban areas that they
know well, where they have some significant support (as Donbas rebels did in Donetsk),
forcing the Russian invaders to fight house to house and causing massive damage while
fighting native boys such as Azov. About 1/3 of Kharkiv overall and 1/2 of its youth are
nationalists. I wouldn't expect mass resistance by the Kharkiv population itself, but
passive support for the rebels by many. Russia will then end up rebuilding a large city
full of a resentful population that will remember its dead (same problem Kiev will face if
it gets Donbas back). This scenario can be repeated for Odessa. Dnipropetrovsk, the home
base of Right Sector, is actually much more nationalistic than either Odessa or Kharkiv.
And Kiev is a different world again. Bitter urban warfare in a city of 3 million
(officially, most likely about 4 million) followed by massive reconstruction and
maintenance of a repression regime while under international sanctions.
Russia's government has adequate intelligence services who know better what Ukraine is
actually like, than you do. There is a reason why they limited their support to Crimea and
Donbas.
Your wishful thinking about Ukraine would be charming and harmless if not for the fact
that such wishful thinking often leads to tragic actions that harm both the invader and the
invaded. Remember the Iraqis were supposed to welcome the American liberators with flowers
after their cakewalk.
@Sean
The share of value-added in industry as a share of global product has been declining for
over 50 years. In the EU, industry accounts for 24.5% of value added. In Britain, the
figure is 20.2%. Not seeing why that animates you.
In fairness, the young Ukrainians I have spoken to avoid the "draft" mainly out of
fear that they will be underequipped and used as cannon fodder.
Correct. The thinking often was -- "the corrupt officers will screw up and get us
killed, or sell out our positions to the Russians for money, if the Russians came to our
city I'd fight them but I don't wanna go to Donbas.." This is very different from avoiding
the draft because one wouldn't mind if Russia annexed Ukraine. Indeed, Dnipropetrovsk in
the East has contributed a lot to Ukraine's war effort, primarily because it borders Donbas
-- ones hears from people there that if they don't fight in Donbas and keep the rebels
contained there, they'd have to fight at home.
US elites and media are constantly freaking out about some Iranian "empire" supposedly
being created and threatening US allies in the mideast
No, they aren't. The political class has been anxious about Iran because it's sinking a
lot of resources into building weapons of mass destruction, because key actors therein
adhere to apocalyptic conceptions, and because it's a weirdly (and gratuitously) hostile
country.
since you seem to put great trust in their credibility, shouldn't that concern you?
Personally I think those fears are exaggerated, but how can it be denied that Iran's
influence has increased a lot in recent years and that the removal of Saddam's regime
facilitated that development? Iranian revolutionary guards and Iranian-backed Shia militias
operate in Iraq, the Iraqi government maintains close ties to Iran, and Iran is also an
active participant in the Syrian civil war would that have been conceivable like this
before 2003?
You keep alluding to things that cannot be quantified or even readily verified. Iran's
taken advantage of disordered situations in the past (in Lebanon), so it's not surprising
they do so in Syria. The disordered situation there is a function of the breakdown of
government in Syria, not of the Iraq war. Whether any influence Iran has in Iraq turns out
to be abiding remains to be seen. The anxiety about Iraq has concerned it's inclination to
subvert friendly governments and drop atomic weaponry on Israel. Not sure how their subrosa
dealings with the Iraqi government further the latter (or even the former).
@AP
LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types. And in
Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.
The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very
few of them -- no more than 10.000 in the entire country. I assume Russian security
services know all of them by name.
To deal with Ukronazi problem, I would first take out their leaders, then target their
HQs, arms depots and training camps. I would kill or intimidate their sponsors. Ukronazis
would be left decapitated, without resources, undermanned and demoralised, trying to fight
an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them. It will be a short lived
insurgency.
The supposed threat of an Iranian empire is a common theme in interventionist US media
and in certain think tanks/pressure groups, even five minutes of googling produced
this:
Obviously I don't want Iran to acquire nuclear weapons, though imo US policy in this
regard has been rather counter-productive recently.
Regarding the Iraq war, it's probably pointless to continue the discussion, if you want to
continue regarding it as a great idea, I won't argue with you.
I remember my dad telling me that the Carter administration was the highlight of
America-love in Pakistan. Slowly went downhill from there and crashed at Dubya.
LMAO, Ukrainians are nothing like Arabs. They are soft Eastern-European types.
And Russians and Poles were also soft when someone invaded their country? Ukrainians are
not modern western Euros.
And in Eastern regions like Kharkov most of them will be on our side.
Most pensioners. It will be about 50/50 among young fighting-age people.
The best thing about Ukrainian neo-Nazis such as Azov battalion is that there is very
few of them -- no more than 10.000 in the entire country
Maybe. Ukrainian government claims 46,000 in volunteer self-defense battalions
(including Azov) but this is probably an exaggeration.
OTOH there are a couple 100,000 demobilized young people with combat experience who
would be willing to fight if their homeland were attacked, who are not neo-Nazis in Azov.
Plus a military of 200,000-250,000 people, many of whom would imitate the Donbas rebels and
probably redeploy in places like Kharkiv where they have cover. Good look fighting it out
block by block.
trying to fight an insurgency amongst the population that hates and despises them
In 2010, 48% of Kharkiv voters chose a nationalist for their mayor. In 2012 about 30%
voted for nationalist parties. Judging by pro vs, anti-Maidan, the youth are evenly split
although in 2014 the Ukrainian nationalist youths ended up controlling the streets, not the
Russian nationalist ones as in Donbas. This is in the most pro-Russian part of Ukraine.
Suuure, the population of Kharkiv will despise their kids, grandkids, nephews,
classmates etc,. but will welcome the invaders from Russia who will be bombing their city.
Such idealism and optimism in Russia!
@German_readerThe supposed threat of an Iranian empire is a common theme in interventionist US
media
"Imperial" or "Imperialist" is a term of art among IR specialists referring to active
revisionist powers in a given state system.
The people you are linking to are a mixed bunch. One's a lapsed reporter. Two are
opinion journalists with background (one in the military and one in the intelligence
services, or so he says), one has been out of office for 40 years (and, IMO, is engaging in
the academic's exercise of attention-seeking through counter-factual utterance; there's
little downside to that), and one actually is someone who has been a policy-maker in the
last generation (and he's offering a critique of the Iran deal, which was not a Bush
administration initiative).
This is of course self-serving fantasy. The Russians told you there was no need to
invade Iraq. The Germans told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The French told you
there was no need to invade Iraq. The Turks told you there was no need to invade Iraq.
The sensible British told you there was no need to invade Iraq, but for some reason you
preferred to listen to the words of the staring-eyed sycophant who happened to be Prime
Minister at the time, instead.
Who gives a damn what they think? These are the same countries that plunged the world
into two World Wars that killed 100m people between them. Their blinkered and self-serving
stupidity is a model for what not to do.
@TalhaI remember my dad telling me that the Carter administration was the highlight of
America-love in Pakistan. Slowly went downhill from there and crashed at Dubya.
I remember Gen. Zia on the front page of The New York Times ridiculing Mr. Carter
in plain terms (the $400 million aid offer was 'peanuts').
@RandalThe Russians told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Germans told you there was
no need to invade Iraq. The French told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The Turks
told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The sensible British told you there was no need
to invade Iraq,
The sensible British were a co-operating force in invading Iraq. As for the rest, they
all have their shticks and interests (and no, I don't stipulate that you've characterized
their opinion correctly either).
And after 9/11 I was very pro-US, e.g. I argued vehemently with a stupid leftie
teacher who was against the Afghanistan war (and I still believe that war was justified,
so I don't think I'm just some mindless anti-American fool). But Iraq was just too much,
too much obvious lying and those lies were so stupid it was hard not to feel that there
was something deeply wrong with a large part of the American public if they were gullible
enough to believe such nonsense. At least for me it was a real turning point in the
evolution of my political views.
The common factor amongst you, reiner and myself here is that none of us come from a
dogmatically anti-American background or personal world-view, nor from a dogmatically
pacifist one.
As I've probably noted here previously, I grew up very pro-American and very pro-NATO in
the late Cold War, and as a strong supporter of Thatcher and Reagan. I saw the fall of the
Soviet Union as a glorious triumph and a vindication of all the endless arguments against
anti-American lefties and CND numpties. I also strongly supported the Falklands War (the
last genuinely justified and intelligent war fought by my country, imo) and also the war
against Iraq in 1990/1, though I'm a little less certain on that one nowadays. I'm
significantly older than you both, it seems, however, and it was watching US foreign policy
in the 1990s, culminating in the Kosovo war, that convinced me that the US is now the
problem and not the solution.
When the facts changed, I changed my opinion.
So I was a war or two ahead of you, chronologically, because I'm older, but we've
travelled pretty much the same road. Our views on America have been created by US foreign
policy choices.
@AP
Again, supporting Maidan doesn't mean you're ready to take up Kalashnikov and go fight.
Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.
This is what typical Maidanist Ukrainian youths look like; these people certainly don't
look like they have a lot of fight in them:
They remind me of Navalny supporters in Russia. These kind of people can throw a
tantrum, but they are fundamentally weak people, who are easily crushed.
@Felix
Keverich Similarly, it doesn't seem likely that the US government will give up its
control and influence over the "independent media" that many Americans still think we have.
Well history has proven them to have been correct and the US regime wrong on Iraq, so
that pretty much tells you how far your arrogance will get you outside your own echo
chamber.
US foreign policy is pretty much a byword for incompetence even amongst its own allies,
at least when they are talking off the record.
@Art
Deco Folks in Belarus shouldn't make up their minds about applying to the EU until they
speak with regular German, French, English, and Swedish people about the effects of the
Islamic / Third World immivasion that the EU has imposed on them. My wife and I speak &
correspond with Germans living in Germany frequently, and the real state of affairs for
non-elite Germans is getting worse fast, with no good end in sight.
Anyone who does not desire to die or at best live subjugated under sharia -- and sharia
run largely by cruel dimwits from Africa and Arabia -- ought to stay out (or GET out of)
the EU.
The sensible British were a co-operating force in invading Iraq.
That was the staring-eyed sycophant's work.
The man who opened the floodgates to immigration because he thought multiculturalism is
a great idea.
As for the rest, they all have their shticks and interests
Of course. Unlike the exceptional United States of course, the only country in the world
whose government never has any axe to grind in the nobility of purpose and intent it
displays in all the wars it has ever fought.
You seem to be degenerating into a caricature of the ignorant, arrogant American.
Well history has proven them to have been correct and the US regime wrong on Iraq, so
that pretty much tells you how far your arrogance will get you outside your own echo
chamber.
"History" has proven no such thing. What went wrong in Iraq was principally Bush's
underestimate of the number of American casualties and the cost to the US treasury*, for
which he and the GOP paid a serious political price. However, it's also clear that the
Shiites and Kurds, an 80% majority, have no regrets that Saddam is gone. While both
communities seem to think that we should continue to bear a bigger chunk of the price of
pacifying Iraq's bellicose Sunni Arabs, it's also obvious that they are not electing
Tikritis or even Sunni Arabs to office, as they would if they were nostalgic for Saddam's
rule. The big picture, really, is that the scale of the fighting has probably convinced
both Shiites and Kurds that they could not have toppled Saddam without the assistance of
Uncle Sam. They could certainly not have kept Iraq's revived Sunni Arabs (in the form of
ISIS) at bay without American assistance.
* These costs were larger than projected, but small compared to the Korean and Vietnam
Wars. Whether or not Iraq can be secured as an American ally in the decades ahead, both the
gamble and the relatively nugatory price paid will, in retrospect, be seen as a reasonable
one, given Iraq's strategic location.
@Art
Deco Sure, but the ordinary folks liked him -- he seemed like a humble man with faith
from humble beginnings. Pakistanis could relate to someone like that.
I was just a wee lad at the time, so I'm only conveying what my dad told me.
@Art
Deco Well, there is some reason to think that membership in the EU will become a
steadily less attractive prospect.
The substantial demographic changes sweeping northern and western Europe now will become
far larger as (1) new "migration" occurs from Africa and the Middle East and Pakistan into
Europe; (2) "family reunification" chain migration goes on endlessly from the same places
into Europe; and (3) Muslims continue to dramatically outbreed non-Muslims in Europe.
(Even if Muslims in Europe drop their total fertility rate to replacement, around 2.1 I
think, the non-Muslim Europeans have TFRs like 1.4 and 1.5 and 1.6, the very definition of
dying peoples.)
And that doesn't even account for the flight of non-Muslims out of Europe as it becomes
ever more violent, frightening, chaotic, and impoverished. That flight could become a
massive phenomenon. (We have acquaintances in Germany and Austria already mulling over the
idea, with great sadness and anger in their hearts.)
On current trends, what reason is there to think that "Germany" and "France" and
"England" and "Sweden" won't in fact be heavily Islamic / African (and in the case of
Germany, Turkish) hellholes in the lifetime of many of us here?
Granted, Russia has too many Muslims itself, and I don't know enough to predict whether
they will be willing and able to remove the excessive number of Central Asian Muslims
(guestworkers or otherwise) from their territory. But Russia is not giving itself away to
Muslims at a breakneck pace like the terminally naïve Germans, French, English, and
Swedes are doing with their own countries.
The point is, Belarus and Ukraine won't be faced with a choice between Russia and the
"Europe" that we still envision from the recent past.
Belarus and Ukraine will likely face a choice between a tenuous independence that they
lack the force to maintain, union or close formal affiliation with Russia, or a "Europe"
where white Europeans are outnumbered, terrified, massively taxed to pay for their younger
and more confident Islamic / African overlords, and ultimately subjugated and killed /
inter-bred into nonexistence.
The Europe that you are positing as an alternative to Russia, already doesn't quite
exist anymore. Soon it won't exist at all in any recognizable or desirable form. Russia
merely needs to be a better alternative than THAT.
@RadicalCenter
Fine. The EU is poorly constructed and a threat to self-government.
Mr. Felix fancies White Russia is Russia's property. There's a constituency in White
Russia for re-incorporation into Russia, but it amounts to about 1/4 of the population and
is half the proportion it was 20 years ago. Kinda think it really shouldn't be Mr. Felix's
call, but he doesn't see it that way.
@German_reader
Agree with much of what you say. With a big exception": most Europeans ARE pussies who try
to appease the Islamic and African aggressors and freeloaders they are importing into their
lands at a furious pace. Besonders die Deutschen.
At least SOME decent portion of Americans are trying to resist the Mexican and Third
World takeover of our country. Albeit probably without success.
Summary: we're probably screwed, you're almost certainly screwed worse and faster.
Keep patting yourself on the back. But grow that beard now and bend over -- and beat the
rush.
@RadicalCenterBelarus and Ukraine will likely face a choice between a tenuous independence that they
lack the force to maintain,
Just to point out that occasions where a state has had its sovereignty extinguished
since 1945 are as follows: East Germany (1990, voluntary), South Yemen (1990, voluntary,
but triggering an insurrection), Kuwait (1990, temporary), South VietNam (1975/76,
conquered). Not real common. N.B. the Axis rampage in Europe and Asia during the War: the
only thing that stuck was Soviet Russia's seizure of the Baltic states.
At least SOME decent portion of Americans are trying to resist the Mexican and Third
World takeover of our country.
30 years too late, though I'll readily admit that I was somewhat impressed how normal US
citizens managed to kill off amnesty proposals during Bush's 2nd administration by lobbying
their congressmen etc. Quite the contrast with what's going on in my own country where
people just meekly submit to everything.
And I've never denied that many Europeans are quite decadent they should certainly spend
more for their own defense, maybe even bring back conscription.
What went wrong in Iraq was principally Bush's underestimate of the number of American
casualties and the cost to the US treasury
No, what went wrong in Iraq from the pov of any kind of honest assessment of an American
national interest was that an unnecessary war was fought justified by lies that have
seriously discredited the nation that told them, and that the results of the war were
hugely counter to said American national interests: the conversion of a contained and
broken former enemy state into a jihadist free fire training and recruitment zone combined
with a strong ally of a supposed enemy state, Iran.
Whether the direct material cost of the war is acceptable or not is rather beside the
point. It's a matter between Bush II and the parents, relatives and friends of those
Americans who lost their lives or their health, and between Bush II and American taxpayers.
If it had been achieved cost-free it still wouldn't have been worth it, because it was a
defeat.
But it's no accident that the costs of the war were "underestimated". As usual, if the
Bush II regime had been honest about the likely costs of their proposed war, there would
have been a political outcry against it and they'd have been forced to back down as Obama
was over Syria.
However, it's also clear that the Shiites and Kurds, an 80% majority, have no regrets
that Saddam is gone
Amusing to see you are currently pretending that what Iraqi Kurds and Shiites feel
matters. It's always entertaining to see just how shameless Americans can be at their game
of alternately pretending to care for foreigners' views (when they need to justify a war)
and regarding foreigners with utter contempt and disregard (when said foreigners are saying
something Americans don't like to hear).
They could certainly not have kept Iraq's revived Sunni Arabs (in the form of ISIS) at
bay without American assistance.
Well that partly depends upon how much support the US regime allowed its Gulf sunni Arab
proxies to funnel to said jihadists, I suppose. But most likely they'd have crushed them in
due course with Iranian backing.
In Iraq, IS were fine as long as they stayed out of the strongly Shiite areas in the
south. They'd have quickly been whipped if they'd ventured there. Just as IS were fine in
Syria as long as they were taking relatively remote land over from a government and army in
desperate straits as a result of a disastrous externally funded civil war, but were soon
beaten when the Russians stepped in and started actually fighting them rather than
pretending to do so only as long as it didn't interfere too much with their real goal of
overthrowing the Syria government, American-style.
@German_reader
I see that Art Deco got more active than usual. Seems that the destruction of Iraq is close
to his heart. Several days ago Ron Unz had this to say about him:
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/#comment-2116171
Exactly! It's pretty obvious that this "Art Deco" fellow is just a Jewish-activist type,
and given his very extensive posting history, perhaps even an organized "troll." But he's
certainly one of the most sophisticated ones, with the vast majority of his comments
being level-headed, moderate, and very well-informed, generally focusing on all sorts of
other topics, perhaps with the deliberate intent of building up his personal credibility
for the periodic Jewish matters that actually so agitate him.
To which I added:
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/#comment-2116402
The quality and wide range of his comments are really impressive. As if it was coming
form a super intelligent AI Hal that has access to all kinds of databases at his finger
tips. And then there is always the same gradient of his angle: the reality is as it is;
reality is as you have been told so far; do not try to keep coming with weird theories
and speculations because they are all false; there is nothing interesting to see. His
quality and scope are not congruent with his angle. All his knowledge and all his data
and he hasn't found anything interesting that would not conform to what we all read in
newspapers. Amazing. If America had its High Office of Doctrine and Faith he could have
been its supreme director.
His overactivity here is somewhat out of character and after reading his comments here I
doubt that Ron Unz would call him "one of the most sophisticated ones." I also would take
back the "really impressive" part too. Perhaps some other individuum was assigned to
Art Deco handle this Monday.
Speaking of US foreign policy stupidity and arrogance, the response to the latest evidence
that Trump will continue the inglorious Clinton/Bush II/Obama tradition of destructive
corrupt/incompetent buffoonery:
And here's the profoundly noxious Nikki Haley "lying for her country" (except,
bizarrely, it isn't even really for her own country). Her appointment by Trump certainly
was one of the first signs that he was going to seriously let America down:
The resolution was denounced in furious language by the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki
Haley, who described it as "an insult" that would not be forgotten. "The United States
will not be told by any country where we can put our embassy," she said.
"It's scandalous to say we are putting back peace efforts," she added. "The fact that
this veto is being done in defence of American sovereignty and in defence of America's
role in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should
be an embarrassment to the remainder of the security council."
The real nature of the UN resolution the execrable Haley was so faux-offended by:
The UK and France had indicated in advance that they would would back the text, which
demanded that all countries comply with pre-existing UNSC resolutions on Jerusalem,
dating back to 1967, including requirements that the city's final status be decided in
direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
But requiring Israel and its US poodles to act in good faith is surely anti-Semitic,
after all. The real beneficiary (he thinks, at least) of Trump's and Haley's buffoonery was
suitably condescending in his patting of his poodles' heads:
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, tweeted: "Thank you, Ambassador Haley.
On Hanukkah, you spoke like a Maccabi. You lit a candle of truth. You dispel the
darkness. One defeated the many. Truth defeated lies. Thank you, President Trump."
@utu
Art Deco isn't Jewish iirc, but an (Irish?) Catholic from the northeastern US. And I
suppose his views aren't even that extreme, but pretty much standard among many US
right-wingers (a serious problem imo), so it makes little sense to attack him personally.
@German_readerOfficial justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden
weapons
The fact that Iraq had no WMD was actually critical to making the claims that it had
them. If Iraq had them it would officially relinquish them which would take away the
ostensive cause for the invasion.
I am really amazed that now 14 years after the invasion there are some who still argue
about the WMD. Iraq was to be destroyed because this was the plan. The plan to reorganize
the ME that consisted of destruction of secular and semi-secure states like Iraq and Syria.
The WDM was just an excuse that nobody really argued for or against in good faith including
Brits or Germans or Turks. Everybody knew the writing on the wall.
@German_readerit makes little sense to attack him personally
Yes, personal attacks are counterproductive but I can't resit, I just can't help it, so
I must to say what I said already several times in the past: you are a cuck. You are a
hopeless case.
The plan to reorganize the ME that consisted of destruction of secular and
semi-secure states like Iraq and Syria.
Has to be admitted though that Iraq became increasingly less secular during the 1990s,
with Saddam's regime pushing Islamization as a new source of legitimacy. It's probably no
accident that former Baath people and officers of Saddam's army were prominent among the
leadership of IS.
Still hardly sufficient reason for the Iraq war though.
@utu
With all due respect to you and Ron Unz, but the idea that someone like "Art Deco" is an
"organized troll" who creates an elaborate fake persona (which he then maintains over
multiple years on several different websites -- I first encountered him years ago on the
American conservative's site) to spread pro-Jewish views seems somewhat paranoid to me.
I have no reason to doubt he's genuine (as far as that's possible on the internet), his
views aren't unusual.
@German_reader
Agree with everything you just wrote. And please understand, I love the Germans and I'm
angry at them in the way that you'd be angry at a brother who refuses to stop destroying
himself with drugs or whatever.
@Felix
Keverich Northern Kazakhstan is/was ethnically Russian, since the 1700s. This should
have been folded into Russia; the North Caucasus should have been cut loose. My opinion.
@Felix
Keverich Typical Russian mistakes regarding Ukraine: weak student-types in Russia are
the main supporters of Ukraine in Russia, thus the same type must be the main pro-Maidan
people in Ukraine. Because Ukraine = Russia. This silly dream of Ukraine being just like
Russia leads to ridiculous ideas and hopes.
As I already said, the Azov battalion grew out of brawling football ultras in Kharkiv.
Maidan itself was a cross-section -- of students, yes, but also plenty of Afghan war vets,
workers, far right brawlers, professionals, etc. It's wasn't simply "weak" students, nor
was it simply far-right fascists (another claim by Russia) but a mass effort of the western
half of the country.
Here are Afghan war vets at Maidan:
Look at those weak Maidan people running away from the enemy:
Azov people in their native Kharkiv:
Kharkiv kids:
Ukrainian youth is dodging draft en masse. It's a fact.
Dodging the draft in order to avoid fighting in Donbas, where you are not wanted by the
locals, is very different from dodging the draft to avoid fighting when your own town is
being invaded.
@AP
Summer camp was in Kiev, but there is another outside Kharkiv.
To be clear, most Ukrainians fighting against Russia are not these unsavory types,
though they make for dramatic video. Point is that pro-Maidan types in Ukraine are far from
being exclusively liberal student-types.
@German_readerStill hardly sufficient reason for the Iraq war though.
What do you mean by that? Are you so out of touch? You really do not understand what was
the reason behind Iraq 2003 war and then fucking it up when Gen. Garner was recalled and
replaced with Paul Bremer who drove Iraq to the ground? Repeat after me: Iraq was destroyed
because this was the only objective of 2003 Iraq war. The mission was accomplished
100%.
A few points:
- The Russians ALWAYS were Americanophiles -- ever since the Revolution. Russia has been an
American ally most often explicit but occasionally tacit -- in EVERY major American
conflict, including the War on Terror and excluding Korea and Vietnam (both not major
compared to the Civil War or WW2). The only comparable Great Power US ally is France.
Russia and the US are natural allies.
- Russians are Americanophiles -- they like Hollywood movies, American music, American
idealism, American video games, American fashion, American inventions, American support in
WW2, American can-do-aittude, American badassery and Americana in general.
- There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was
repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange entity
that is not Russian.
- The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government.
Yanukovich was certainly a corrupt scoundrel. But he was a democratically elected corrupt
scoundrel. To claim Russian intervention in his election is a joke in light of the
CIA-backed 2004 and 2014 coups. Moreover, post-democratic post-Yanukovich Ukraine is
clearly inferior to its predecessor. For one thing, under Yanukovich, Sevastopol was still
Ukrainian
@Felix
Keverich I think this poll is the most relevant for assessing the question, since it
covered different regions and used the same methodology.
Takeaway:
1. Support for uniting into a single state with Russia at 41% in Crimea at a time when
it was becoming quite clear the Yanukovych regime was doomed.
2. Now translates into ~90% support (according to both Russian and international polls)
in Crimea. I.e., a more than a standard deviation shift in "Russophile" sentiment on this
matter.
3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being with
Russia post facto . Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov,
Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass unhappiness
with the Ukraine before 2014).
4. Central and West Ukraine would not be, which is why their reintegration would be far
more difficult -- and probably best left for sometime in the future.
5. What we have instead seen is a one standard deviation shift in "Ukrainophile"
sentiment within all those regions that remained in the Ukraine. If this change is "deep,"
then AP is quite correct that their assimilation into Russia has been made impossible by
Putin's vacillations in 2014.
@German_readerthey [Germans] should certainly spend more for their own defense, maybe even bring back
conscription .
With all due respect, and making allowance for your relative youth, that is simply
rubbish. Defense against whom? Russia? Iran? As your posts make it eminently clear, the
real enemy of Germany is within, not without.
The Maidan was a foreign-backed putsch against a democratically elected government
Typical Russian nationalist half-truth about Ukraine.
To be clear -- Yanukovich was democratically elected in 2010, into a position where his
powers were limited and where he was faced with a hostile parliament. His post-election
accumulation of powers (overthrowing the Opposition parliament, granting himself additional
powers, stacking the court with local judges from his hometown) was not democratic. None of
these actions enjoyed popular support, none were made through democratic processes such as
referendums or popular elections. Had that been the case, he would not have been overthrown
in what was a popular mass revolt by half the country.
There are two Ukraines. One is essentially a part of Russia, and a chunk of it was
repatriated in 2014. The other was historically Polish and Habsburg. It is a strange
entity that is not Russian.
A bit closer to the truth, but much too simplistic in a way that favors Russian
idealism. Crimea (60% Russian) was simply not Ukraine, so lumping it in together with a
place such as Kharkiv (oblast 70% Ukrainian) and saying that Russia took one part of this
uniformly "Russian Ukraine" is not accurate.
You are correct that the western half of the country are a non-Russian Polish-but-not
Habsburg central Ukraine/Volynia, and Polish-and-Habsburg Galicia.
But the other half consisted of two parts: ethnic Russian Crimea (60% Russian) and
largely ethniuc-Russian urban Donbas (about 45% Russian, 50% Ukrainian), and a heavily
Russified but ethnic Ukrainian Kharkiv oblast (70% Ukrainian, 26% Russian), Dnipropetrovsk
(80% Ukrainian, 20% Russian), Kherson (82% Ukrainian, 14% Russian), and Odessa oblast (63%
Ukrainian, 21% Russian).
The former group (Crimea definitely, and urban Donbas less strongly) like being part of
Russia. The latter group, on the other hand, preferred that Ukraine and Russia have
friendly ties, preferred Russian as a legal language, preferred economic union with Russia,
but did not favor loss of independence. Think of them as pro-NAFTA American-phile Canadians
who would nevertheless be opposed to annexation by the USA and would be angered if the USA
grabbed a chunk of Canada. In grabbing a chunk of Ukraine and supporting a rebellion in
which Kharkiv and Dnipropetrovsk kids are being shot by Russian-trained fighters using
Russian-supplied bullets, Putin has turned these people off the Russian state.
3. Assuming a similar shift in other regions, Novorossiya would be quite fine being
with Russia post facto. Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov,
Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye, and Kherson (e.g., probably on the scale of Donbass
unhappiness with the Ukraine before 2014).
'Asumptions' like this are what provide Swiss cheese the airy substance that makes it
less caloric! Looks like only the retired sovok population in the countryside is up to
supporting your mythical 'NovoRosija' while the more populated city dwellers would be
opposed, even by your own admission (and even this is questionable). I'm surprised that the
dutifully loyal and most astute opposition (AP) has let this blooper pass without any
comment?
@Anatoly
Karlin I think when answering this question, most people simple give what they consider
to be the socially acceptable answer, especially in comtemporary Ukraine, where you will go
to prison for displaying Russian flag -- who wants to be seen as a "separatist"?
In Crimea it has become more socially acceptable to identify with Russia following the
reunification, which is why the number of people who answer this way shot up . The
same effect will seen in Belarus and Ukraine -- I'm fairly certain of it.
Though there would be significant discontent in Kharkov, Dnepropetrovsk, Zaporozhye,
and Kherson
Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of society.
Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic profile
of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters. Most of them will react to
Russian takeover by self-deporting -- they have the money and resources to do it.
Demographic profile of Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper resembles demographic
profile of Navalny supporters in Russia. These people are not fighters.
Repeating your claim over and over again doesn't make it true.
The Azov Battalion has its roots in a group of Ultras of FC Metalist Kharkiv named "Sect
82″ (1982 is the year of the founding of the group).[18] "Sect 82″ was (at
least until September 2013) allied with FC Spartak Moscow Ultras.[18] Late February 2014,
during the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine when a separatist movement was active in
Kharkiv, "Sect 82″ occupied the Kharkiv Oblast regional administration building in
Kharkiv and served as a local "self-defense"-force.[18] Soon, on the basis of "Sect
82″ there was formed a volunteer militia called "Eastern Corps".[18]
The brawling East Ukrainian nationalists who took the streets of Kharkiv and Odessa were
not mostly rich, fey hipsters.
Discontent will be limited to educated, affluent, upwardly mobile circles of
society.
So, even by tour own admission, the only folks that would be for unifying with Russia
are the uneducated, poor and those with no hopes of ever amounting to much in society. I
don't agree with you, but I do see your logic. These are just the type of people that are
the most easily manipulated by Russian propoganda -- a lot of this went on in the Donbas,
and we can see the results of that fiasco to this day.
a)Post-WWII American power elites are both incompetent and arrogant (which is a first
derivative of incompetence) to understand that -- this is largely the problem with most
"Western" elites.
b) Currently the United States doesn't have enough (if any) geopolitical currency and
clout to "buy" Russia. In fact, Russia can take what she needs (and she doesn't have
"global" appetites) with or without the US. Plus, China is way more interested in Russia's
services that the US, which will continue to increasingly find out more about its own
severe military-political limitations.
c) The United States foreign policy is not designed and is not being conducted to serve
real US national interests. In fact, US can not even define those interests beyond the
tiresome platitudes about "global interests" and being "exceptional".
@AP I
like how I got you talking about the Ukronazis, it's kinda funny actually, so let me pose
as Ukraine's "defender" here:
This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern
Ukraine. These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes. They are despised, looked down
upon by the normal people, pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian alike. A typical Ukrainian
nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an office worker, a student
who dodges draft. It's just the way it is.
One substantial correction: generation which now is in power and defines most of
Russia's dynamics, age group of 40s-50s, was largely influenced by British music, not
American one, despite its definite presence in cultural menu in 1960 through 1980s. British
music was on the order of magnitude more popular and influential in USSR. The love for
American music was rather conditional and very selective. Of course, jazz was and is huge
among educated and cultured, but in terms of pop/rock if one discounts immensely popular
Eagles (for obvious reason), Donna Summer or something on the order of magnitude of
Chicago, British pop-music was a different universe altogether. Beatles, Pink Floyd, Deep
Purple or even British Glam were immense in 1970s, not to mention NWBHM in 1980s. One would
have more luck hearing Iron Maiden blasting from windows somewhere in Russia than music of
Michael Jackson.
@AP
The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of delinquents,
for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources, bigger guns
and perhaps even political power. Azov is simply a gang. And Russian security
services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs, so I don't expect Ukronazis to pose
a major challenge.
@Anon
Yes, a highly intelligent, hardworking, conservative, Christian Asian woman who loves and
appreciates America, is the same as a Muslim African, Arab or Paki whose religion tells him
to subjugate or kill us. No drastic difference in genetics or the impact on our culture,
language, economy, and security there.
Moreover, allowing our native-born white citizens to choose spouses from elsewhere is
the same as admitting tens of millions of people with little to no screening whatsoever
(the latter being admitted in the interest of those who actively seek the most dimwitted,
violent, intimidating, slothful, hateful, and incompatible people psosible in order to
endanger, impoverish, and dumb down out people and set the stage for us to "need" a police
state to manage the chaos and crime they bring).
Your logic is impeccable, I'll admit.
How long have you been married, by the way? And how many children are you raising? I
just ask because I am sure we can compare notes and I can benefit from your manly
experience and expertise.
Get a consistent handle to use on this site. Then tell us personal details as many of us
have done. Then we can have a further friendly chat, big anonymous man who comments on
other men's wives.
@Felix
Keverich I'm not sure about Ukrainian football hooligans, but football hooligans in
Hungary are not necessarily "low -lifes, criminals, delinquents", in fact, the majority of
them aren't. Most groups consist mostly of working class (including a lot of security
guards and similar) members, but there are some middle class (I know of a school
headmaster, though I think he's no longer very active in the group) and working class
entrepreneur types (e.g. the car mechanic who ended up owning a car dealership) and
similar. I think outright criminal types are a small minority. Since it costs money to
attend the matches, outright failures (the permanently unemployed and similar
ne'er-do-wells) are rarely found in such groups.
One would have more luck hearing Iron Maiden blasting from windows somewhere in Russia
than music of Michael Jackson.
What about Metallica or Slayer? The famous
1991 Monsters of Rock in Moscow featured I think Metallica in its prime and Pantera
right before they became really big (and heavy).
@LondonBobArt Deco is a Zionist, just checkout his reaction when you point out Israel assassinated
JFK.
My reaction is that you need to take your risperidal, bathe, and quit pestering people
for bits of cash. And make your clinic appointments. They're sick of seeing you at the
ED.
@reiner
Tor LOL I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of
their pastime. Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including
murder, kidnapping and racketeering. Their criminal activities go unpunished by the regime,
because they are considered "heroes" or something.
This neo-Nazi scum is not in any way representative of the population of Eastern
Ukraine.
If by "representative" you mean majority, sure. Neither are artsy students, or Afghan
war veterans, or schoolteachers, any other group a majority.
Also not all of the street fighters turned militias neo-Nazis, as are Azov. Right Sector
are not neo-Nazis, they are more fascists.
These are delinquents, criminals, low-lifes.
As reiner tor correctly pointed out, this movement which grew out of the football ultra
community is rather working class but is not lumpens. You fail again.
A typical Ukrainian nationalist East of Dnieper is a business owner, a journalist, an
office worker, a student who dodges draft
Are there more business owners, students (many of whom do not dodge the draft), office
workers combined than there are ultras/far-right brawlers? Probably. 30% of Kharkiv voted
for nationalist parties (mostly Tymoshenko's and Klitschko's moderates) in the 2012
parliamentary elections, under Yanukovich. That represents about 900,000 people in that
oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?
The exteme nationalist Banderist Svoboda party got about 4% of the vote in Kharkiv
oblast in 2012. This would make Bandera twice as popular in Kharkiv as the democratic
opposition is in Russia.
I classify all football hooligans as low-lifes simply due to the nature of their
pastime.
They are well integrated into the rest of society, so you can call them low-lifes, but
they will still be quite different from ordinary criminals.
Ukrainian neo-Nazi militias have been involved in actual crimes including murder,
kidnapping and racketeering.
But that's quite different from being professional criminals. Members of the Waffen-SS
also committed unspeakable crimes, but they rarely had professional criminal backgrounds,
and were, in fact, quite well integrated into German society.
@Talhahe seemed like a humble man with faith from humble beginnings. Pakistanis could relate
to someone like that.
Carter was an agribusinessman whose personal net worth (not counting his mother's
holdings and siblings' holdings) was in seven digits in 1976. (His dipso brother managed
the family business -- passably well -- from 1963 until 198?). John Osborne interviewed
1st, 2d, and 3d degree relations of Carter during the campaign and discovered the family
was in satisfactory condition financially even during the Depression. Carter also spent the
2d World War -- the whole thing -- at the Naval Academy.
There's much to be said for Carter, but there's no doubt one of his shortcomings is
vanity. Harry Truman is the closest thing to a humble man in the White House in the years
since Pakistan was constituted. If you're looking for 'humble beginnings', the best
examples are Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon.
@Art
Deco Not relevant re humble beginnings but re Pakistan: you've probably heard the
famous anecdote about Kennedy and Bhutto:
K: "You know, you're a bright man. If you were an American I'd have you in my
cabinet."
B: "No, Mr. President; if I were an American you would be in my cabinet."
The way to think about Azov battalion is to treat them like a simple group of
delinquents, for whom Ukrainian nationalism has become a path to obtain money, resources,
bigger guns and perhaps even political power
Yes, there are elements of this, but not only. If they were ethnic Russians, as in
Donbas, they would have taken a different path, as did the pro-Russian militants in Donbas
who are similar to the ethnic Ukrainian Azovites. Young guys who like to brawl and are
ethnic Russians or identify s such joined organizations like Oplot and moved to Donbas to
fight against Ukraine, similar types who identified as Ukrainians became Azovites or joined
similar pro-Ukrainian militias. Also not all of these were delinquents, many were working
class, security guards, etc.
Good that you admit that in Eastern Ukraine nationalism is not limited to student
activists and businessmen.
And Russian security services have plenty of experience dealing with gangs,
They chose to stay away from Kharkiv and limit Russia's action to Donbas, knowing that
there would be too much opposition, and not enough support, to Russian rule in Kharkiv to
make the effort worthwhile.
@Anon
Out of all hypotheses on the JFK assassination the one that Israel was behind it is the
strongest. There is no question about it. From the day one when conspiracy theories were
floated everything was done to hide how Israel benefited form the assassination.
@reiner
Tor I feel that comparing Azov to SS gives it too much credit.
My point is that this way of life is not something that many people in Ukraine are
willing to actively participate in. Most people are not willing to condone it either. AP
says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities. But I
don't see how this could work -- there will a thousand people around them willing to rat
them out.
There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and
it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.
That represents about 900,000 people in that oblast. There aren't 900,000 brawling
far-rightists in Kharkiv. So?
This means these people won't pose a big problem. These folks will take care of
themselves either through self-deportation or gradually coming to terms with the new
reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea did.
Even among Svoboda voters, I suspect only a small minority of them are the militant
types. We should be to contain them through the use of local proxies. The armies of Donbass
republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to Cassad blog, which compares
with the size of the entire Ukrainian army. We should be able to recruit more local
Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.
@utuOut of all hypotheses on the JFK assassination the one that Israel was behind it is the
strongest. There is no question about it. From the day one when conspiracy theories were
floated everything was done to hide how Israel benefited form the assassination.
Actually, it's completely random and bizarre, but random and bizarre appeals to a
certain sort of head case. Oliver Stone's thesis (that the military-industrial complex took
down the President by subcontracting the job to a bunch of French Quarter homosexuals) is
comparatively lucid.
AP says that Azov and the like can act like underground insurgency in Eastern cities.
But I don't see how this could work -- there will a thousand people around them willing
to rat them out.
About 1/3 of the population in Eastern Ukrainian regions voted for Ukrainian
nationalists in 2012, compared to only 10% in Donbas. Three times as many. Likely after
2014 many of the hardcore pro-Russians left Kharkiv, just as hardcore pro-Ukrainians left
Donetsk. Furthermore anti-Russian attitudes have hardened, due to the war, Crimea, etc. So
there would be plenty of local support for native insurgents.
Russians say, correctly, that after Kiev has shelled Donetsk how can the people of
Donetsk reconcile themselves with Kiev?
The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian
forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders
shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?
There is no pro-Ukrainian insurgency in Crimea or inside the republics in Donbass, and
it's not due to the lack of local football hooligans.
Crimea was 60% Russian, Donbas Republics territory about 45% Russian; Kharkiv oblast is
only 25% Russian.
With Donbas -- there are actually local pro-Ukrainian militants from Donbas, in the
Donbas and Aidar battalions.
@AP It
was a decision that Putin personally made. He wasn't going to move in Crimea either, until
Maidanists overthrew his friend
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even
desirable. And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him
being intimidated by Azov militia.
These folks will take care of themselves either through self-deportation or gradually
coming to terms with the new reality in Kharkov, just like their compatriots in Crimea
did
The problem with this comparison is that Crimeans were far more in favor of joining
Russia that are Kharkivites.
The armies of Donbass republics currently number some 40-60 thousand men according to
Cassad blog, which compares with the size of the entire Ukrainian army.
Ukrainian military has 200,000 -- 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves.
Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?
We should be able to recruit more local Ukrainian proxies once we're in Kharkov.
You would be able to recruit some local proxies in Kharkiv. Kiev even did so in Donbas.
But given the fact that Ukrainian nationalism was 3 times more popular on Kharkiv than in
Donetsk, and that Kharkiv youth were split 50/50 in terms of or versus anti Maidan support
(versus 80/20 IIIRC anti-Maidan in Donbas), it would not be so easy. Moreover, by now many
of the hardcore anti-Kiev people have already left Kharkiv, while Kharkiv has had some
settlement by pro-Ukrainian dissidents from Donbas. So the situation even in 2014 was hard
enough that Russia chose to stay away, now it is even worse for the pro-Russians.
And I'm sure the restraint Putin has shown on Ukraine doesn't come from him being
intimidated by Azov militia.
This is rather a symptom of a much wider phenomenon: the population simply doesn't see
itself as Russian and doesn't want to be part of Russia. So its hooligan-types go for
Ukrainian, not Russian, nationalism as is the case in Russia.
The time when Russia could have bloodlessly marched into Kharkiv is over. Ukrainian
forces have dug in. How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders
shelling their city in order to to take it under their control?
The locals will move to disarm Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage, then
welcome Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do? lol
It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of
Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and the
perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains
completely undefended. It's wide open!
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even
desirable.
Well there you have it. Putin is a much smarter guy than you are Felix (BTW, are you
Jewish, all of the Felix's that I've known were Jewish?). Good to see that you're nothing
more than a blackshirted illusionist.*
@for-the-record
German and European reliance on US security guarantees is a problem, since it's become
pretty clear that the US political system is dysfunctional and US "elites" are dangerous
extremists. We need our own security structures to be independent from the US so they can't
drag us into their stupid projects or blackmail us anymore why do you think Merkel didn't
react much to the revelations about American spying on Germany? Because we're totally
dependent on the Americans in security matters.
And while I don't believe Russia or Iran are really serious threats to Europe, it would be
foolish to have no credible deterrence.
"How will Kharkiv people feel towards uninvited Russian invaders shelling their city
in order to to take it under their control?"
They will move to disarm ther Ukrainian forces, who have taken their city hostage,
then welcome their Russian liberators with open arms, what else they are going to do?
lol
While about 1/3 of Kharkiv voted for Ukrainian nationalists, only perhaps 10%-20% of the
city would actually like to be part of Russia (and I am being generous to you). So your
idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with flowers.
It's just a joke though. In reality there is virtually no Ukrainian forces in city of
Kharkov. They don't have the manpower. Ukrainian regime managed to fortify Perekop and
the perimeter of the people's republics, but the rest of Ukraine-Russia border remains
completely undefended.
Are you living in 2014? Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is
2014-2015. It is comforting for them.
Ukraine currently has 200,000-250,000 active troops. About 60,000 of them are around
Donbas.
Here is a map of various positions in 2017:
Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized
infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses). The map does not include national guard units
such as Azov, however, which would add a few thousand troops to Kharkiv's defense.
It looks like rather than stationing their military in forward positions vs. a possible
Russian attack, Ukraine, has put lot of troops in Dnipropetrovsk, Mykolaiv, Kiev and
Odessa.
Ukrainian military has 200,000 -- 250,000 active members and about 100,000 reserves.
Where did you get your information? The end of 2014?
I read Kassad blog, and he says Ukrainian formations assembled in Donbass number some
50-70 thousands men. The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy
(LOL), the airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready. Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a
lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to feed and clothe their soldiers, which
limits their ability field an army.
By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men -- that's
impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft.
@APSo your idea is equivalent to American fantasies of Iraqis greeting their troops with
flowers.
The local populations in Iraq were congenial to begin with, at least outside some Sunni
centers. It was never an object of American policy to stay in Iraq indefinitely.
Kharkiv does appear to be lightly defended, though not undefended (it has a motorized
infantry brigade and a lot of air defenses).
How many people does this "motorized infantry brigade" have? And more importantly what
is its level of combat readiness? Couldn't we just smash this brigade with a termobaric
bomb while they are sleeping?
Ukraine is full of shit. They had 20.000 troops in Crimea, "a lot of air defenses" and
it didn't make a iota of difference. Somehow you expect me to believe Ukraine has a
completely different army now. Why should I? They don't have the resources to afford a
better army, so it is logical to assume that Ukrainian army is still crap.
@German_reader
And while I don't believe Russia or Iran are really serious threats to Europe, it would
be foolish to have no credible deterrence.
What "credible deterrence" are you proposing for Germany? As has been clearly
demonstrated, the only credible deterrence against a determined foe (of which Germany has
none, at least externally) is nuclear. Is this what you are suggesting?
Germany has willingly supported the US (presumably in continuing gratitude for US
support during the Cold War), it hasn't been "blackmailed" into this. Austria, on the other
hand, has survived for more than 60 years without the US "umbrella" to protect it (and with
a military strength rated below that of Angola and Chile), so why couldn't Germany? There
is no need whatsoever for Germany to build up its military strength; rather, what Germany
(sorely) lacks is the desire (and guts) to act independently of the US.
Russian nationalists always like to think of Ukraine as if it is 2014-2015. It is
comforting for them.
Betwixt and between all the trash talking, they've forgotten that the last occasion on
which one country attempted to conquer an absorb another country with a population anywhere
near 30% of its own was during the 2d World War. Didn't work out so well for Germany and
Japan.
What about Metallica or Slayer? The famous 1991 Monsters of Rock in Moscow featured I
think Metallica in its prime and Pantera right before they became really big (and
heavy).
Metallica primarily and AC/DC. Pantera were more of a bonus. Nowhere near massive
popularity of AC/DC and Metallica, who were main attraction. Earlier, in 1988, so called
Moscow Peace Festival also saw a collection of heavy and glam metal luminaries such as
Motley Crue, Cinderella, Bon Jovi, Scorpions, of course, etc. But, of course, Ozzy was met
with a thunder by Luzhniki stadium. The only rock royalty who was allowed to give a first
ever concert on Red Square was Sir Paul, with Putin being personally present. Speaks
volumes. British rock was always dominant in USSR. In the end, every Soviet boy who was
starting to play guitar had to know three chords of the House of the Rising Sun. Russians
are also very progressive rock oriented and in 1970s Yes, Genesis, Gentle Giant etc. were
huge. Soviet underground national anthem was Uriah Heep's masterpiece of July Morning. I
believe Bulgaria still has July Morning gatherings every year. All of it was British
influence. My generation also grew up with British Glam which for us was a pop-music of the
day -- from Sweet to Slade, to T.Rex. And then there was: QUEEN.
@for-the-recordAustria, on the other hand, has survived for more than 60 years without the US
"umbrella" to protect it (and with a military strength rated below that of Angola and
Chile), so why couldn't Germany?
Austria hasn't been absorbed by Germany or Italy therefore Germany doesn't have a use
for security guarantees or an armed force. Do I render your argument correctly?
Not completely true, Germany didn't participate in the Iraq war and in the bombing of
Libya.
I'm hardly an expert on military matters, but it would seem just common sense to me that a
state needs sufficient armed forces to protect its own territory if you don't have that,
you risk becoming a passive object whose fate is decided by other powers. Doesn't mean
Germany should have a monstrously bloated military budget like the US, just sufficient
forces to protect its own territory and that of neighbouring allies (which is what the
German army should be for instead of participating in futile counter-insurgency projects in
places like Afghanistan). Potential for conflict in Europe is obviously greatest regarding
Russia it's still quite low imo, and I want good relations with Russia and disagree
vehemently with such insanely provocative ideas as NATO membership for Ukraine and Georgia,
but it would be stupid not to have credible deterrence (whose point it is to prevent
hostilities after all). I don't think that's an anti-Russian position, it's just
realistic.
Apart from that Germany doesn't probably need much in the way of military capabilities
maybe some naval forces for participation in international anti-piracy missions.
Regarding nuclear weapons, that's obviously something Germany can't or shouldn't do on its
own (probably wouldn't be tolerated anyway given 20th century history), so it would have to
be in some form of common European project. Hard to tell now if something like this could
eventually become possible or necessary.
@Felix
Keverich Sorry to prickle your little fantasy world once again tovarishch, but
according to current CIA statistics Ukraine has 182,000 active personnel, and 1,000,000
reservists! For a complete rundown of Ukraine's military strength, read this and weep:
@Art
Deco A lot of what used to be manufacturing, such as engineering design, is now put
under the category of services. Manufacturing companies want to be listed as engaged in
services because manufacturing is perceived as not profitable. Britain is alone among
comparable countries in having lost significant amounts of productive capacity.
K: "You know, you're a bright man. If you were an American I'd have you in my
cabinet."
B: "No, Mr. President; if I were an American you would be in my cabinet."
The thing about many of these corrupt, worthless and incompetent Third World leaders is
they're not lacking in self-esteem. Just ask Karzai. Or Maliki.
@Art
Deco The potential power of China is an order of magnitude greater than Japan. After
WW2 Japan, and to a lesser extent Germany, were too small to be a threat. Don't you believe
all that Robert Kagan 'the US solved the problems that caused WW1 and 2′ stuff. China
is a real hegemon in the making and they will take a run at it, unless they are contained
by military pressure on their borders.
Modern Japan is more like Singapore than China. China has economies of scale, they have
a single integrated factory complex making laptops with has more workers than the British
army. China will have a huge home market, like America. So by the time it dawns on America
that China's growing power must be checked, economic measures will be ineffective.
@Art
DecoAustria hasn't been absorbed by Germany or Italy therefore Germany doesn't have
a use for security guarantees or an armed force. Do I render your argument correctly?
That's about right, yes. Except I didn't say that Germany should have no military
capability, only that there is no sense in increasing current military expenditure. A
military capability can be useful for dealing with emergencies, such as tornadoes and
hurricanes.
@Art
DecoThey've had ample opportunity over a period of 26 years to make the decision
you favor. It hasn't happened, and there's no reason to fancy they'll be more amenable a
decade from now.
Yes, these people had been sold a vision. If only they leave behind the backward,
Asiatic, mongoloid Russia, they will instantly Join Europe. They will have all of the good
stuff: European level of prosperity, rule of law, international approval, and so on; and
none of the bad stuff that they associated with Russia, like poverty, corruption, and civil
strife.
Official Ukrainian propaganda worked overtime, and still works today, to hammer this
into people's heads. And it's an attractive vision. An office dweller in Kiev wants to live
in a shiny European capital, not in a bleak provincial city of a corrupt Asian empire. The
problem is, it's ain't working. For a while Ukraine managed to get Russia to subsidize
Ukrainian European dream. Now this is over. The vision is starting to fail even harder.
The experience of Communism shows that it may take decades but eventually people notice
that the state ideology is a lie. Once they do, they change their mind about things rather
quickly.
@SeanModern Japan is more like Singapore than China.
There are 120 million people living in Japan, settlements of every size, and
agricultural land sufficient for Japan to supply demand for rice from domestic production.
So, no.
It goes without saying that Putin doesn't share my nationalist approach to Ukraine
problem: he does not see the destruction of Ukrainian project as necessary or even
desirable.
Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in
Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool . More military adventurism is foolish for at
least three reasons:
(1) All the civilian deaths in the Donbass, somewhat perversely, play to Russia's
advantage in that they take some of the sting out of the "Ukraine is the victim" narrative.
Common people know full well that the Ukrainian troops are hated in the Donbass (I once
watched a Ukrainian soldier shock the audience by saying this on Shuster Live), and they
know also that Kiev has a blame in all those dead women and children. These are promising
conditions for future reconciliation, and they would be squandered overnight if Russian
troops moved further westward.
(2) The geopolitical repercussions would be enormous. As I and others have already
written, the present situation is just about what people in elite Western circles
can stomach. Any Russian escalation would seriously jeopardize European trade with Russia,
among other things.
(3) There is a good chance that Crimea will eventually be internationally recognized as
part of the RF (a British parliamentary report on this matter in 2015, I think it was, made
this quite clear). The same might also be true of the Donbass. These "acquisitions," too,
would be jeopardized by more military action.
@inertial
1. You fancy they're bamboozled and you're not. Cute.
2. You also fancy your interlocutors are economic illiterates and that they'll buy into
the notion that the solution to the Ukraine's economic problems is to be forcibly
incorporated into Russia. Such a change in political boundaries addresses no
economic problems.
@Swedish
Family(1) All the civilian deaths in the Donbass, somewhat perversely, play to
Russia's advantage in that they take some of the sting out of the "Ukraine is the victim"
narrative.
You mean Putin mercs kill more Ukrainian civilians and we 'take some of the sting out of
the 'Ukraine is a victim narrative'? Sounds like a plan.
There is a good chance that Crimea will eventually be internationally recognized as
part of the RF (a British parliamentary report on this matter in 2015, I think it was, made
this quite clear). The same might also be true of the Donbass. T
Did you cc the folks in Ramallah and Jerusalem about that?
I've been all over the comment boards calling for my country (the USA) to take a less
belligerent, more honest, friendlier approach to Russia, and I've largely taken the side of
Russia in the Ukraine and Syria controversies.
I also don't think Russia has any current designs on the territory of its western
neighbors, or the desire for the dire consequences that would likely follow as the US and
others react to such a move.
But that doesn't mean that it's prudent for Germany (or any other smaller, less populous
country near Russia) to simply trust that Russia will never use military force against them
in the future.
Nor should Germany assume that China will not ultimately find it worthwhile to take
their territory or resources for its own massive, overcrowded, ambitious population.
Germany's military forces are grossly inadequate. Same for France. Same for the UK. None
of them should purport to predict well into the future that Russia, China, and others
(Turkey) will never be both willing and able to invade them. Nor should Germany et al.
assume that the USA will always be in a position to jump in to defend Europeans in the
absence of serious European militaries.
In fact, the western Europeans' glaring military weakness (and their obvious loss of the
will to defend their people, their land, and their way of life) could serve to encourage
physical aggression by, e.g., Turkey or Russia. Betting that you need a military merely
"for dealing with emergencies, such as tornadoes and hurricanes" is a potentially fatal
bet, with irreversible consequences.
@Johann
Ricke So the costs of the US invasion/occupation/"reconstruction" of Iraq were
(allegedly) less than the costs of the equally unnecessary and non-defensive US wars in
Korea and Vietnam? Heck of an argument.
How about this: we should have refrained from all three wars.
We should be using our resources to secure our own borders, to police the international
waters and vital shipping lanes / chokepoints (fighting pirates and terrorists as necessary
to those ends), and to actually defend our land and our people and deter aggression. That's
it.
Germany's military forces are grossly inadequate. Same for France. Same for the
UK.
Grossly inadequate for what purpose?
What matters about military strength is its relation to neighbours' and potential
enemies' strengths. Germany's military spending currently ranks number nine in the world
(using the SIPRI
figures per Wikipedia for simplicity ), which when you consider they are located in the
middle of one of the safest continents (militarily speaking) in the world, surrounded by
allies with whom military conflict is currently pretty much inconceivable, is quite
impressive. Above them are only its European allies UK and France, the grossly bloated US
and Saudi Arabian budgets, Russia and China, and Japan and India. Apart from South Korea
who come next, Germany spends half as much again as the next on the list (Italy).
Germany's military shortcomings can in no plausible degree be attributed to not spending
enough, unless you think Germany should be remilitarising for a potential war with Russia.
Basically, Germany's military is toothless mostly because nobody in Germany really thinks
it matters, nobody expects to be involved in a war, and such spending as it has is mostly
purposed to suit a Germany integrated into NATO and the EU rather than an independent
state. If there's a problem it's not down to insufficient spending but to how the money is
currently spent.
Like you I'm a general believer in having a strong military, and in "si vis pacem, para
bellum". But it's hard to see how Germany could really benefit from increased military
spending. If they were to feel genuinely threatened, nuclear weapons would make much more
sense (along with a radical reorganisation of the current spending and conventional
military establishment).
There's a lot of American nonsense talked about European states underspending on their
military, but the reality is that the US grossly overspends to serve its own global
interventionist purposes. There's no reason why European states should spend to serve those
purposes, which is what in reality increased European spending in the current context would
be used for.
What we might see in some potential circumstances is increased German (and European in
general) military spending in order to give them the confidence to break away from NATO and
US control, and build the long trailed "European Defence Force". That looks a lot more
likely after Brexit and in the context of the Trump presidency than it did a few years ago,
but it's still something of a distant possibility. In that case, though, the increases
would be mainly for morale building and transitional spending purposes, given that the
combined EU military budget is already second in the world, behind only the ludicrous
US.
You mean Putin mercs kill more Ukrainian civilians and we 'take some of the sting out
of the 'Ukraine is a victim narrative'? Sounds like a plan.
No, I wrote that those civilians are already gone and that both sides had a hand in
their deaths, which will help the peace process since no side can claim sole
victimhood.
And your assumption that the separatists are mercenaries is groundless speculation.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine, and
there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
Did you cc the folks in Ramallah and Jerusalem about that?
Risible comparison. Theirs is a conflict involving three major religions and the
survival of the Israeli state at stake. On the Crimean question, we have already heard
influential Westerners voice the possibility that it might one day be accepted as Russian,
and if you read between the lines, many Ukrainians are of a similiar mind.
But the EU isn't merely a threat to self-government anymore. It is now actively and
intentionally importing people who kill, rape, mug, beat, grope, harass, stalk, and
generally disrespect and intimidate "their own" European people. The EU is an active threat
to the lives and physical safety of European people. No people with the barest common sense
and will to live will stay in the EU as these recent horrific events continue to
unfold.
@RadicalCenterNor should Germany assume that China will not ultimately find it worthwhile to take
their territory or resources for its own massive, overcrowded, ambitious population.
This is really a case of misplaced priorities.
Germany is in the process of losing its national identity built up over 2,000 years or
so, and it has nothing to do with the Chinese (or the Russians either, for that matter).
And China certainly doesn't need its military to successfully export its "massive,
overcrowded, ambitious population" overseas (cf. Western Canada, Australia).
Focusing on the (non-existent, in my opinion) need for Germany to increase its current
(already high) level of military expenditures will do nothing to preserve Germany as a
European nation.
@for-the-record
Take a look at my other comments. You'll see that I wholeheartedly agree with you about the
moral sickness, cowardice, misplaced guilty, and terminal naivete of the Germans leading
them to surrender their land, their property, their way of life, and their very lives to
the Muslim and African savages they are importing.
As a recent book by a German politician put it, "Deutschland schafft sich ab", or
"Germany does away with itself."
But what has that to do with Germany also refusing to maintain a serious military
defense force to deter potential threats from state actors such as Russia, Turkey, and
China? Any nation worth its salt must both secure / guard its orders AND keep a military
ready to fight external forces. Germany can and should do both, and right now it's doing
neither.
@for-the-record
As for China in particular: of course China is glad to export millions of its people to
settle and become citizens in the USA, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the former
"West."
They are thereby en route to acquiring real social influence, and ultimately some direct
political power, in those places (especially Australia and the provinces of "British"
Columbia and Alberta, owing to the very small white populations of those places compared to
the immigration onslaught).
I lived part-time in Richmond and Vancouver, BC, and know just how quickly that region
is becoming an alien culture -- Chinese more than anything, but also Muslim, Hindu, and
Sikh. (Look up the career of crooked "Canadian" former pol and now radio-host Kash Heed,
among many other examples.) I would expect that Mandarin will eventually become a co-equal
official language of government (and public schools) in BC, with no effective opposition by
those ever-"tolerant" Canadians ("We're not like those racist Americans, you know!").
But the people who have emigrated from China thus far are a drop in the bucket. China is
still terribly overcrowded and lacks both land and natural resources needed to sustain its
population. Actually outright TAKING swathes of Europe or, say, Africa, would help them a
lot more than immigration. When the time is right -- say, after the US dollar loses its
world reserve status and/or the US is beset by widespread racial conflict and riots --
China may well make its move in that regard. I hope not, and I don't think it will be very
soon, but a wise country needs a strong military in the face of China and other
threats.
@Felix
Keverich Unfortunately, the Ukraine has been spending 5%* of its GDP on the military
since c.2015 (versus close to 1% before 2014).
Doesn't really matter if tons of money continues to be stolen, or even the recession --
with that kind of raw increase, a major enhancement in capabilities is inevitable.
Like it or not, but outright war with Maidanist Ukraine has been ruled out from the
beginning, as the more perceptive analysts like Rostislav Ischenko have long recognized.
If there was a time and a place for it, it was either in April 2014, or August 2014 at
the very latest. Since then, the Ukrainian Army has gotten much stronger. It has been
purged of its "Russophile" elements, and even though it has lost a substantial percentage
of its remnant Soviet-era military capital in the war of attrition with the LDNR, it has
more than made up for it with wartime XP gain and the banal fact of a quintupling in
military spending as a percentage of GDP from 1% to 5%. This translates to an effective
quadrupling in absolute military spending, even when accounting for Ukraine's post-Maidan
economic collapse. Russia can still crush Ukraine in a full-scale conventional conflict,
and that will remain the case for the foreseeable future, but it will no longer be the
happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two years earlier.
The entire Ukrainian army is around 200.000 men, including the navy (LOL), the
airforce, but most of it isn't combat ready.
250,000. Combat readiness is very different from 2014.
Ukraine doesn't just suffer from a lack of manpower, they don't have the resources to
feed and clothe their soldiers, which limits their ability field an army.
Again, it isn't 2014 anymore. Military budget has increased significantly, from 3.2
billion in 2015 to 5.17 billion in 2017. In spite of theft, much more is getting
through.
By contrast the armies of people's republics have 40-60 thousand men -- that's
impressive level of mobilisation, and they achieved this without implementing draft
It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine,
and there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
80% are natives. Perhaps as much as 90%. However, often it a way to make a meager salary
in those territories, so there is a mercenary aspect to it. Lots of unemployed workers go
into the Republic military.
Estimations are that well over half of the separatists are born and bred in Ukraine,
and there is no evidence to suggest that they are fighting for the love of money.
80% in 2014-15, to be precise; another 10% from the Kuban; 10% from Russia, the Russian
world, and the world at large.
NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians --
no Russian went there to get rich.
That said, I strongly doubt there will ever be international recognition of Crimea, let
alone Donbass. Israel has by far the world's most influential ethnic lobby. Even NATO
member Turkey hasn't gotten Northern Cyprus internationally recognized, so what exactly are
the chances of the international community (read: The West) recognizing the claims of
Russia, which is fast becoming established in Western minds as the arch-enemy of
civilization?
@Anatoly
Karlin Fascinating link. The numbers for the military budget are a lot lower than
reported elsewhere.
Mobilization percentages by region:
"Among the leaders of the fourth and fifth wave of partial mobilisation were the
Khmelnitsky,
Dnipropetrovsk, Vinnytsia, Kirovohrad and Zaporizhia regions, as well as the city
of Kyiv, whose mobilisation plan was fulfilled 80-100% (the record was Vinnytsia
oblast,
which achieved 100% mobilisation). At the opposite extreme are the Kharkiv, Chernivtsi,
Donetsk, Ivano-Frankivsk, Lugansk, Sumy, Ternopil and Transcarpathian regions, where
the results of the mobilisation varied from 25 to 60%."
Summary:
2014:
The true face of the Ukrainian armed forces was revealed by the Russian annexation of
Crimea and the first weeks of the war in the Donbas -- they were nothing more than a
fossilised structure, unfit for any effective function upon even a minimum engagement
with the enemy, during which a significant part of the troops only realised whom they
were representing in the course of the conflict and more than once, from the perspective
of service in one of the post-Soviet military districts, they chose to serve in the
Russian army
2017:
The war in the Donbas shaped the Ukrainian army. It gave awareness and motivation to
the soldiers, and forced the leadership of the Defence Ministry and the government of the
state to adapt the army's structure -- for the first time since its creation -- to real
operational needs, and also to bear the costs of halting the collapses in the fields of
training and equipment, at least to such an extent which would allow the army to fight a
close battle with the pro-Russian separatists. Despite all these problems, the Ukrainian
armed forces of the year 2017 now number 200,000, most of whom have come under fire, and
are seasoned in battle. They have a trained reserve ready for mobilisation in the event
of a larger conflict*; their weapons are not the latest or the most modern, but the vast
majority of them now work properly; and they are ready for the defence of the vital
interests of the state (even if some of the personnel still care primarily about their
own vested interests). They have no chance of winning a potential military clash with
Russia, but they have a reason to fight. The Ukrainian armed forces of the year 2014, in
a situation where their home territory was occupied by foreign troops, were incapable of
mounting an adequate response. The changes since the Donbas war started mean that Ukraine
now has the best army it has ever had in its history.
* The Ukrainian armed forces have an operational reserve of 130,000 men, relatively
well trained and with real combat experience, who since 2016 have been moulded out of
veterans of the Donbas (as well as from formations subordinate to the Interior Ministry).
It must be stressed, however, that those counted in the reserve represent only half of
the veterans of the anti-terrorist operation (by October 2016, 280,000 Ukrainians had
served in the Donbas in all formations subordinate to the government in Kyiv, with
266,000 reservists gaining combat status; at the beginning of February 2017, 193,400
reservists were in the armed forces). Thanks to that, at least in terms of the human
factor, it should be possible in a relatively short period of time to increase the
Ukrainian army's degree of combat readiness, as well as to fight a relatively close
battle with a comparable opponent, something the Ukrainian armed forces were not capable
of doing at the beginning of 2014.
@Art
Deco I respectfully disagree with you about the Iraq war (one of the few areas on which
I disagree with you).
I suppose had the West made a massive investment in Iraq, secured its Christian
population, loaded it with US troops, and did to it what was done to Japan, over several
decades, transforming it into a prosperous democratic US ally, removing Saddam (who
deserves no sympathy) might have been a nice thing. It would have been a massive financial
drain but having a "Japan", other than Israel, in the heart of the Middle East might have
been worth it (I am not a Middle East expert but it seems the Shah's Persia was sort of
being groomed for such a role).
Instead, it ended up being a disaster -- 100,000s dead in sectarian massacres, Christian
population nearly destroyed, and other than Kurdish areas, an ally either of Iran or of
militant anti-American Sunnis. At the cost, to the USA, of dead Americans, lots of money,
and loss of soft power. I also suspect that America being stuck and preoccupied in Middle
East conflicts gave room for Russia to act. I guess its a tribute to how strong America is,
that it is still doing pretty well in spite of the debacle. A lesser power such as the USSR
would have been sunk.
NAF salaries are good by post-2014 Donbass standards, but a massive cut for Russians
-- no Russian went there to get rich.
Which further points to the critical role played by Russians. Many of the local
volunteers are participating because doing so offers a salary, which is very important in a
wrecked, sanctioned Donbas. The Russian 10%-20% are motivated, often Chechen combat vets.
They are more important than their % indicates.
@melanf
What is almost incomprehensible for me in these endless Russia vs Ukraine arguments is how
they (yes both sides) always ignore the real issues and instead keep on raising relatively
petty points while thinking that mass non white immigration and things like the EU
commissioner of immigration stating openly that Europe needs endless immigration, are not
important. It's like white South Africans who still debate the Boer war or the Irish debate
the northern Ireland question, and are completely oblivious to the fact that these things
don't matter anymore if you have an entirely new people ruling your land (ok in South
Africa they were not new, but you know what I mean).
That's rght, and it happens to the whole world too including those countries destroyed by
US and under its sanction. The bombastic propaganda MSM fake news and Hollywood have
brainwashed all to harbour delusion that US is a perfect heaven paved with gold, honey and
milk, people of high morality and freedom. Wait till they live there to find out reality of
DemoNcracy made in USA.
@melanf
I think it's mostly Gerard2. Mr. Hack is fairly hostile but coldly civil. Don't think this
compares to Runet xoxlosraches at all (of course I try to cut any such developments in the
bud).
I have read a article mentioned something like Putin said, to annexed whole Ukraine means
to share the enormous resource wealth of vast Russia land with them, which make no economic
sense. If Russia is worst than Ukraine, then there won't be million of Ukrainian migrating
over after the Maidan coup.
So are all those Baltic states. Russia don't want these countries as it burden, it is
probably only interested in selected strategic areas like the Eastern Ukraine industrial
belt and military important Crimea warm water deep seaport, and skilled migrants. Ukraine
has one of lowest per capital income now, with extreme corrupted politicians controlled by
USNato waging foolish civil war killing own people resulting in collapsing economic and
exudes of skilled people.
What it got to lose to unify with Russia to have peace, prosperity and been a nation of
a great country instead of poor war torn? Plus a bonus of free Russia market access,
unlimited cheap natural gas and pipeline toll to tax instead of buying LNG from US at
double price.
Sorry this s just my opinion based on mostly fake news we are fed, only the Ukrainian
know the best and able to decde themselves.
Agreed, and he happens to be in the right here. Russia actually has a good hand in
Ukraine, if only she keeps her cool. More military adventurism is foolish for at least
three reasons:
Yes, this is my view also. I think Russia was never in a position to do much more than
it has, and those who talk about more vigorous military interference are just naïve,
or engaging in wishful thinking, about the consequences. I think Putin played a very bad
hand as well as could reasonably be expected in Ukraine and Crimea. No doubt mistakes were
made, and perhaps more support at the key moment for the separatists (assassinations of
some of the key oligarchs who chose the Ukrainian side and employed thugs to suppress the
separatists in eastern cities, perhaps) could have resulted in a better situation now with
much more of the eastern part of Ukraine separated, but if Russians want someone to blame
for the situation in Ukraine apart from their enemies, they should look at Yanukovich, not
Putin.
In the long run, it seems likely the appeal of NATO and the EU (assuming both still even
exist in their current forms in a few years time) is probably peaking, but strategic
patience and only limited covert and economic interference is advisable.
The return of Crimea to Russia alone has been a dramatic improvement in the inherent
stability of the region. A proper division of the territory currently forming the Ukraine
into a genuine Ukrainian nation in the west and an eastern half returned to Russia would be
the ideal long term outcome, but Russia can surely live with a neutralised Ukraine.
@Anatoly
Karlin If presenting a Ukrainophile point of view at this website is considered to be
'pretty hostile' then so be it. I cannot countenance the slimy way that Gerard2 reponds to
AP's comments. He was getting way out of line with his name calling and needed to be put in
his place.
@RadicalCenterBut the people who have emigrated from China thus far are a drop in the bucket. China is
still terribly overcrowded and lacks both land and natural resources needed to sustain its
population.
As we speak, about 8.5% of the value-added in China's economy is attributable to
agriculture and about 27% of the workforce is employed in agriculture. Industry and
services are not land-intensive activities.
About 1/2 of China's land area consists of arid or alpine climates suitable for only
light settlement. As for the rest, China's entire non-agricultural population could be
settled at American suburban densities on about 23% of the whole.
You don't need 'natural resources' on site to 'sustain your population'. Imports of oil
and minerals will do. As for foodstuffs, China's been a net importer since 2004. However,
its food-trade deficit is currently about $35 bn, a single-digit fraction of China's total
food consumption.
You realise that Ukraine's GDP declined in dollar terms by a factor of 2-3 times, right?
A bigger share of a smaller economy translates into the same paltry sum. It is still under
$5 billion.
Futhermore an army that's actively deployed and engaged in fighting spends more money
than during peacetime. A lot of this money goes to fuel, repairs, providing for soldiers
and their wages rather than qualitatively impoving capabilities of the army.
The bottomline is Ukraine spent the last 3,5 years preparing to fight a war against the
People's Republic of Donetsk. I'll admit Ukrainian army can hold its own against the
People's Republic of Donetsk. Yet it remains hopelessly outmatched in a potential clash
with Russia. A short, but brutal bombing campaign can whipe out Ukrainian command and
control, will make it impossible to mount any kind of effective defence. Ukrainian
conscripts have no experience in urban warfare, and their national loyalties are
unclear.
AP predicts that the cities of Kharkov, Dniepropetrovsk will be reduced to something
akin to Aleppo. But it has taken 3 years of constant shelling to cause the damage in
Aleppo. A more likely outcome is that Ukrainian soldiers will promptly ditch their
uniforms, once they realise the Russian are coming and their command is gone.
@Felix
Keverich Nominal GDP collapsed, but real GDP only fell by around 20%. This matters
more, since the vast majority of Ukrainian military spending occurs in grivnas.
By various calculations, Ukrainian military spending went up from 1% of GDP, to 2.5%-5%.
Minus 20%, that translates to a doubling to quadrupling.
What it does mean is that they are even less capable of paying for advanced weapons from
the West than before, but those were never going to make a cardinal difference anyway.
AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't
agree with him on that. In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming
no large-scale American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would
have been in 2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even
dozens) of Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.
@Gerard2
We'd all benefit if you'd sober up and add brevity and humor to your emotional outbursts
and trash talk. No need for much verbiage in the absence of substantive information.
@AP
The American occupation of Japan lasted 7 years, not 'several decades'. Japan was quite
capable of rapid and autonomous economic development without the assistance of the United
States or any other power. Neither was the United States government the author of Japanese
parliamentary institutions, which antedate the war. There were certain social reforms
enacted during the MacArthur regency (I think having to do with the agricultural sector).
The emperor's power was further reduced in the 1946 constitution. A portion of the
flag-rank military were put in front of firing squads. That's about it.
Again, much of Iraq is quiet and has been for a decade. What's not would be the
provinces where Sunnis form a critical mass. Their political vanguards are fouling their
own nest and imposing costs on others in the vicinity, such as the country's Christian
population and the Kurds living in mixed provinces like Kirkuk. You've seen severe internal
disorders in the Arab world over 60 years in Algeria, Libya, the Sudan, the Yemen, the
Dhofar region of Oman, Lebanon, Syria, and central Iraq. If you want to understand this,
you have to look to how Arab societies themselves are ordered (in contrast to interwar or
post-war German society).
It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary.
It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better! LOL
My point is that this bodes well for our ability to recruit proxies in Ukraine, don't
you think? We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in
Kharkov. That's the approach I would use in Ukraine: strip away parts of it piece by piece,
create local proxies, use them to maintain control and absorb casualties in the fighting on
the ground.
In reality Russia will still be able to smash the Ukraine, assuming no large-scale
American intervention, but it will no longer be the trivial task it would have been in
2014, and will likely involve thousands as opposed to hundreds (or even dozens) of
Russian military deaths in the event of an offensive up to the Dnieper.
Fortunately, we'll not be seeing a replay of the sacking and destruction of Novgorod as
was done in the 15th century by Ivan III, and all of its ugly repercussions in Ukraine.
Besides, since the 15th century, we've seen the emergence of three separate nationalities
out of the loose amalgamation of principalities known a Rus. Trying to recreate something
(one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect existed, now in the 21st century is
a ridiculous concept at best.
"It's one of the only ways to make any money in the Republics, so draft is
unnecessaary."
It's not like the regime-controlled parts of the country are doing much better!
LOL
Well, they are, at least in the center and west. Kievans don't volunteer to fight
because they have no other way of making money. But you probably believe the fairytale that
Ukraine is in total collapse, back to the 90s.
We could easily assemble another 50.000-strong local army, once we're in Kharkov.
If in the process of taking Kharkiv the local economy goes into ruin due to wrecked
factories and sanctions so that picking up a gun is the only way to feed one's family for
some people, sure. But again, keep in mind that Kharkiv is much less pro-Russian than
Donbas so this could be more complicated.
@Anatoly
KarlinHow so? Poland and France (together around equal to Germany's population)
worked out perfectly for Nazi Germany.
You're forgetting a few things. In the United States, about 1/3 of the country's
productive capacity was devoted to the war effort during the period running from 1940 to
1946. I'll wager you it was higher than that in Britain and continental Europe. That's what
Germany was drawing on to attempt to sustain its holdings for just the 4-5 year period in
which they occupied France and Poland. (Russia currently devotes 4% of its productive
capacity to the military). Germany had to be exceedingly coercive as well. They were facing
escalating partisan resistance that whole time (especially in the Balkans).
Someone whose decisions matter is going to ask the question of whether it's really worth
the candle.
@Art
Deco Thanks for the correction. This suggests that transforming Iraq into a solidly
pro-Western stable democracy would have been much harder than doing so for Japan. This I
think would have been the only legitimate reason to invade in Iraq in 2003 (WMDs weren't
there, and in 2003 the regime was not genocidal as it had been decades earlier when IMO an
invasion would have been justified)
Again, much of Iraq is quiet and has been for a decade. What's not would be the
provinces where Sunnis form a critical mass. Their political vanguards are fouling their
own nest and imposing costs on others in the vicinity, such as the country's Christian
population and the Kurds living in mixed provinces like Kirkuk.
Correct, but most of this have been the case had the Baathists remained in power?
You've seen severe internal disorders in the Arab world over 60 years in Algeria,
Libya, the Sudan, the Yemen, the Dhofar region of Oman, Lebanon, Syria, and central
Iraq.
Which is why one ought to either not invade a country and remove a regime that maintains
stability and peace, or if one does so -- take on the responsibility of investing massive
effort and treasure in order to prevent the inevitable chaos and violence that would erupt
as a result of one's invasion.
@Anatoly
Karlin To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of
Russian military personnel. Use LDNR army: transport them to Belgorod and with Russians
they could move to take Kharkov, while facing minimal opposition. Then move futher to the
West and South until the entire Ukrainian army in Donbass becomes encircled at which point
they will likely surrender.
After supressing Ukrainian air-defence, our airforce should be able to destroy command
and control, artillery, armoured formations, airfields, bridges over Dnieper, other
infrustructure. Use the proxies to absord casualties in the fighting on the ground.
but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two
years earlier.
Anatoly, please, don't write on things you have no qualification on writing. You can not
even grasp the generational (that is qualitative) abyss which separates two armed forces.
The question will not be in this:
but it will no longer be the happy cruise to the Dnepr that it would have been two
years earlier.
By the time the "cruising" would commence there will be no Ukrainian Army as an
organized formation or even units left -- anything larger than platoon will be hunted down
and annihilated. It is really painful to read this, honestly. The question is not in
Russian "ambition" or rah-rah but in the fact that Ukraine's armed forces do not posses ANY
C4ISR capability which is crucial for a dynamics of a modern war. None. Mopping up in the
East would still be much easier than it would be in Central, let alone, Western Ukraine but
Russia has no business there anyway. More complex issues were under consideration than
merely probable losses of Russian Army when it was decided (rightly so) not to invade. I
will open some "secret" -- nations DO bear collective responsibility and always were
subjected to collective punishment -- latest example being Germany in both WWs -- the
bacillus of Ukrainian "nationalism" is more effectively addressed by letting those
moyahataskainikam experience all "privileges" of it. In the end, Russia's resources were
used way better than paying for mentally ill country. 2019 is approaching fast.
P.S. In all of your military "analysis" on Ukraine one thing is missing leaving a gaping
hole -- Russian Armed Forces themselves which since 2014 were increasing combat potential
exponentially. Ukies? Not so much -- some patches here and there. Russian Armed Forces of
2018 are not those of 2013. Just for shits and giggles check how many Ratnik sets have been
delivered to Russian Army since 2011. That may explain to you why timing in war and
politics is everything.
I think you mean Western Europe. If Germany's human capital drains to Poland et al in a
reversal of the Cold War direction, those countries have a quite bright future. I wonder if
any economic predictions have taken this into account yet.
AP is certainly exaggerating wrt Kharkov looking like Aleppo and I certainly didn't
agree with him on that.
I wrote that parts of the city would look like that. I don't think there would be enough
massive resistance that the entire city would be destroyed. But rooting out a couple
thousand armed, experienced militiamen or soldiers in the urban area would cause a lot of
expensive damage and, as is the case when civilians died in Kiev's efforts to secure
Donbas, would probably not endear the invaders to the locals who after all do not want
Russia to invade them.
And Kharkiv would be the easiest to take. Dnipropetrovsk would be much more Aleppo-like,
and Kiev Felix was proposing for Russia to take all these areas.
To be honest, I don't think it'll be necessary to sacrifice so many lives of Russian
military personnel.
The question is not in losses, per se. Russians CAN accept losses if the deal becomes
hot in Ukraine -- it is obvious. The question is in geopolitical dynamics and the way said
Russian Armed Forces were being honed since 2013, when Shoigu came on-board and the General
Staff got its mojo returned to it. All Command and Control circuit of Ukie army will be
destroyed with minimal losses if need be, and only then cavalry will be let in. How many
Russian or LDNR lives? I don't know, I am sure GOU has estimates by now. Once you control
escalation (Russia DOES control escalation today since can respond to any contingency) you
get way more flexibility (geo)politcally. Today, namely December 2017, situation is such
that Russia controls escalation completely. If Ukies want to attack, as they are inevitably
forced to do so, we all know what will happen. Ukraine has about a year left to do
something. Meanwhile considering EU intentions to sanction Poland, well, we are witnessing
the start of a major shitstorm.
Trying to recreate something (one Rus nation) out of something that never in effect
existed, now in the 21st century is a ridiculous concept at best.
A stupid comment for an adult. Ukraine, in effect never existed before
Russia/Stalin/Lenin created it. Kiev is a historical Russian city, and 5 of the 7 most
populated areas in Ukraine are Russian/Soviet created cities, Russian language is favourite
spoken by most Ukrainians ( see even Saakashvili in court, speaking only in Russian even
though he speaks fluent Ukrainian now and all the judges and lawyers speaking in Russian
too), the millions of Ukrainians living happily in Russia and of course, the topic of what
exactly is a Ukrainian is obselete because pretty much every Ukrainian has a close Russian
relative the level of intermarriage was at the level of one culturally identical
people.
AK: Improvement! The first paragraph was acceptable, hence not hidden.
@APThis suggests that transforming Iraq into a solidly pro-Western stable democracy would
have been much harder than doing so for Japan.
That was never the object. The object was (1) to remove a hostile government and (2)
replace it with a normal range government. Normal range governments aren't revanchist,
aren't territorially grabby, are chary about subverting neighboring governments, and aren't
in their international conduct notably driven by pride or political theo-ideology. The
House of Saud, the Hashemites, Lebanon's parliamentary bosses, the Turkish military, the
(post-Nasser) Egyptian military, etc. etc are all purveyors of normal-range government. NPR
likely has transcripts of interview programs in early 2003 in which Wm. Kristol was a
participant. Kristol was not a public official at the time, but he was the opinion-monger
who most assiduously promoted the conquest of Iraq. Kristol never expected Iraq to be like
Switzerland; he expected an Iraq that was 'tense' (his words), pluralistic, and willing to
live in its international environment rather than against that environment.
Correct, but most of this have been the case had the Baathists remained in
power?
I suspect the Shia and Kurd populations are pleased to be rid of the Baathists.
@Mr.
Hack economics, hope that the west and their puppets in Kiev would act like sane and
decent people, threat of sanctions and so on.
As is obvious, if the west had remained neutral ( an absurd hypothetical because the
west were the ringmasters of the farce in this failed state) ..and not supported the coup
and then the evil war brought on the Donbass people, then a whole different situation works
out in Ukraine ( for the better)
@Art
Deco I was speaking of 2003. Of course, for much of its history Saddam's regime was not
that. Too bad it wasn't stopped then, if it was going to be stopped.
@S3
Nietzsche famously foresaw the rise and fall of communism and the destruction of Germany in
the two world wars. He also liked to think of himself as a Polish nobleman. Maybe this is
what he meant.
@Art
Deco When calculated with constant pricing share of manufacturing in GDP in Germany,
Italy and France is not very much, It has actually risen in Switzerland and the US, and
risen greatly in Sweden, they are buying, people who think like you are selling out.
[...]All of those supposedly knowledge-intensive services sell mostly to manufacturing
firms, so their success depends on manufacturing success. It is not because the Americans
invented superior financial techniques that the world's financial centre moved from
London to New York in the mid-20th century. It is because the US became the leading
industrial nation.
The weakness of manufacturing is at the heart of the UK's economic problems. Reversing
three and a half decades of neglect will not be easy but, unless the country provides its
industrial sector with more capital, stronger public support for R&D and
better-trained workers, it will not be able to build the balanced and sustainable economy
that it so desperately needs.
@SeanWhen calculated with constant pricing share of manufacturing in GDP in Germany, Italy
and France is not very much, It has actually risen in Switzerland and the US, and risen
greatly in Sweden, they are buying, people who think like you are selling out.
"Not very much" according to whom? Manufacturing accounts for about 15% of Europe's
domestic product, about 12% of that for North America, and about 8% for that of the
Antipodes. It's higher in the Far East (about 24%), but Japan is in no danger of overtaking
the United States in per capita product, it's larger manufacturing sector notwithstanding.
There is no region of the globe bar the Far East where that sector much exceeds 15% of
total value added. Comparatively large manufacturing sectors are characteristic of the more
affluent middle income countries. As countries grow more productive and affluent, their
consumption patterns and productive capacity shift to services.
I've no clue why you and this fellow at The Guardian have bought into the notion
that there is something magical about manufacturing (it was a popular meme a generation
ago, promoted by Felix Rohaytn). By way of example, Germany and Japan have lost ground
economically to the UK and the US in the last 25 years, even though they devote ~21% of
their productive capacity to manufacturing in contrast to the ~11%.of the Anglosphere.
(Germany remains more affluent than Britain to the tune of about 11%, but about 15% less
affluent than the United States).
@Art
Deco Sorry, mistake. I meant when you do the comparison with constant prices,
manufacturing has not declined very much in the US ect . Britain is different it has lost a
lot of manufacturing. Britain cannot build its own nuclear power station. Germany and
France have taken the industry and would have come for the City next. Britain was to be the
milch cow of the EU, so it got out.
Switzerland is a rich mans country and so is Sweden. Business runs certain countries and
those countries are actually adding to their productive capacity, so they are not acting
like it is not profitable. That Guardian fellow is a professor of Economics at Oxford, and
I already quoted you Lord Weinstock who ran just about Britain's most profitable company:
it wasn't doing services. Once Weinstock retired his successor listened to the City
financial geniuses, sold the manufacturing core of the business, and when times got bad the
had nothing to fall back on and collapsed.
Germany does not have a single currency and Schengen Agreement free movement with the
US. German goods are expensive in the US, the single currency and Schengen Agreement are an
export promotion program for Germany industry. The Germans are going to deindustrialise the
rest of the EU. Britain realised it had to get out now or be borged.
@Sean
Britain hasn't lost any manufacturing output. It indubitably has fewer workers employed in
manufacturing, but manufacturing output has not declined. What's happened is that growth in
production since 1990 has been concentrated in the service sector.
The decline in the salience of manufacturing in the British economy has been more rapid
than it has elsewhere, but the same basic story has played out. The share of value added
attributable to manufacturing hit bottom in Britain in 2006, btw.
As I am sure you know service sector employment is mainly masses on low wages, so low they
are subsidized by the state in many cases, and increasingly on zero hours contracts. Hence
low demand. Running Britain on a London and the SE boom on the rationale that the country
is economically stronger relative to Germany and Japan is unstable because the strength of
the country in not increasing in any meaningful sense. The recent votes in Britain should
have made it clear that the country is not more stable for all the economic "success". The
people feel Britain is getting weaker compared to Germany.
No one doubts that Britain has a manufacturing problem and the inefficiency is at
the root of the loss of manufacturing but other counties are basically not the same, and
that is why Britain left the EU. Germany is playing the manufacturing game on its own terms
inside the EU with a single currency.
There is. Manufacturing productivity can easily be increased. Agriculture is more
difficult, and by the time its fully motorized, it's already a very small portion of the
total output. While services productivity is very low and cannot be easily increased. So an
economy with no manufacturing cannot raise its productivity much. It's also more difficult
to export services, so countries with low manufacturing will often experience huge current
account deficits.
High value added services can be risky, especially finance, which makes the country
vulnerable to credit cycles. The UK could export most financial services while credit was
easy. During the credit crunch it suddenly exported way less. So it's very pro-cyclical,
more so than manufacturing, because such countries still need to service their oversized
(due to the size of the financial sector) debts and obligations. It makes them too
leveraged.
@SeanAs I am sure you know service sector employment is mainly masses on low wages, so low
they are subsidized by the state in many cases, and increasingly on zero hours
contracts.
No, I don't know that. The compensation scales in various industrial sectors (as a % of
the mean across all private sectors) are as follows:
Utilites: 206%
Management of companies and enterprises: 201%
Mining: 178%
Information: 176%
Finance: 173%
Professional, scientific and technical services: 156%
Wholesale Trade: 127%
Manufacturing: 119%
Construction: 103%
Real estate: 99%
Transportation and Warehousing: 99%
Health Care and Social Assistance: 92%
Educational services [private]: 82%
Arts, entertainment, and recreation: 81%
Administrative and waste management services: 70%
Miscellaneous svs: 69%
Accommodation: 63%
Agriculture, Fishing, Forestry: 63%
Retail trade: 60%
Wages in manufacturing are above the mean. More sophisticated technology means you're
left with fewer employees (but with the skill sets to operate the machinery). (About 11% of
the private sector workforce is in manufacturing).
@SeanAs I am sure you know service sector employment is mainly masses on low wages, so low
they are subsidized by the state in many cases, and increasingly on zero hours contracts.
Hence low demand.
They're not running a current account deficit of 4.4% of gdp because they're suffering
from 'low demand'
@AP
Turning Iraq into a stable democracy would have been a legitimate reason to wage war? Must
respectfully and strenuously disagree. We would be constantly at war if that were the
standard. And, in fact, we HAVE been constantly at war. It has to stop.
@S3
Great point, S3, and I will correct my comment to exclude Eastern Europe from the
prediction of likely substantial non-Muslim flight ("Eastern Europe" meaning, for this
purpose, Poland, Hungary, Belarus if it is not so foolish as to join the EU, and whatever
is left of Ukraine that is not re-claimed by Russia).
But I'd also predict likely substantial "flight of non-Muslims out of Western and
perhaps CENTRAL Europe", unfortunately.
Because I am not at all convinced, yet, that Austria will not continue to be colonized
by Muslims. Austria may be colonized at a slower pace than Germany if the new Austrian
government seriously secures its borders, deports some existing invaders who have not been
granted citizenship yet, and refuses to take any new Muslim and/or African/Arab
"refugees."
But even if that occurs, as I fervently hope, Muslims apparently will continue to
constitute an ever-larger share of Austria's population -- based simply on the huge
difference in fertility rates among non-Muslims compared to Muslims there. Even without any
new immigration to Austria, an improbably happy state of affairs, Austrians simply don't
have enough children to replace themselves. Not even close.
With Austrian TFR so persistently low, all Muslims in Austria need to do is maintain a
TFR at replacement (say, 2.1), and they will take over the country.
That new government had better get to work if they don't want to see Austrians fleeing
east (or to the USA) along with the droves of Germans who will certainly be underway.
Turning Iraq into a stable democracy would have been a legitimate reason to wage
war
Yes. That doesn't necessarily mean we should have done it, even if that were the reason.
As you said, we can't keep doing this everywhere all the time. Nor am I claiming it is
possible (it was done in Japan but Japan is not Iraq). But if we did invade, and then did
whatever had to be done to transform the place from a Baathist dictatorship with radical
Islam simmering underneath, into a stable, decent, secular, Christian-tolerant and allied
country, that would have been legitimate.
@RadicalCenter
Does Austria have anything like the US's RICO Act? Creating something like it and
generously applying it to immigrant crime would be one of my suggestions, a
California-style three-strikes law would be another.
The in-your-face pro-natality propaganda does not seem to be working. So maybe something
subtler is required, like asking television and film studios to produce more traditional
role-models for women. More scenes of doting mothers and adorable babies. And yes, Kurz's
wife should definitely be given a role.
Its very amusing reading all the comments so far. But reality is that Russia should take
back all the lands conquered by the Tsars, and that includes Finland.
Look at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the
world. And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without
America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their
"presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office. Now America has
even moved into Eastern Europe, and has troops and radars and nuclear capable missile
batteries stationed there. So America is just expanding and expanding its grasp while
Russia must contract its territories even further and further. Yippee.
So Russia must take back all the territories conquered by the Tsars so as to not lose
this game of monopoly. Those in those territories not too happy about such matters can move
to America or deal with the Red Army. This is not a matter of cost benefits analysis but a
matter of Russia's national security, as in the case of Chechnya.
The territories to Russia's East are especially necessary for Russia's security; when
the chips are down, when all the satellites have been blown out of space, all the aircraft
blown out of the air, all the ground hardware blown to smithereens; when the battle is
reduced to eye to eye rat like warfare, then those assorted Mongol mongrels from Russia's
East come into their element. Genghis Khan was the biggest mass murderer in history, he
made Hitler look like a school boy, his genes live on in those to Russia's East. So if
America were to get involved in Ukraine Russia would have no issues losing a million troops
in a matter of days while the US has never even lost a million troops in its civil war and
WW2 combined.
Lets face it, those Mongol mongrels make much better fighters than the effete Sunni
Arabs any day, so Russia should get them on her side. In Syria those ISIS idiots would
never have got as far as they did were it not for those few Chechens in their midst's.
But alas, Russia has to eat humble pie at the moment, internationally and at the
Olympics. But humble pie tastes good when its washed down with bottles of vodka, and its
only momentarily after all.
@gTLook at America. Currently the US has troops stationed in other countries all over the
world.
Since 1945, between 70% and 87% of American military manpower has been stationed in the
United States and its possession. The vast bulk of the remainder is generally to be found
in about a half-dozen countries. (In recent years, that would be Germany, Japan, Iraq,
Afghanistan, and Kuwait). Andrew Bacevich once went on a whinge about the stupidity of
having a 'Southern Command' without bothering to tell his readers that the Southern Command
had 2,000 billets at that time, that nearly half were stationed at Guantanamo Bay (an
American possession since 1902), that no country had more than 200 American soldiers
resident, and that the primary activity of the Southern Command was drug interdiction. On
the entire African continent, there were 5,000 billets at that time.
And most of those "independent" countries can't take virtually no decision without
America's approval. This is definitely the case with Germany and Japan, where their
"presidents" have to take an oath of loyalty to the US on assuming office.
I especially like the bit about "Though most of the German officers were not originally
inclined against America, a lot of them being educated in the United States, they are now
experiencing disappointment and even disgust with Washington's policies." Seems its not
only the Russians who are getting increasingly pissed off with the US when at first they
actually liked the US. No wonder the Germans are just letting their submarines and tanks
rot away.
@Art
Deco Switzerland has the second highest per capital value added manufacturing,
Singapore is first. Successful profitable services do not seem stand alone in any actual
economy.
Successful profitable services do not seem stand alone in any actual economy.
Well, you're not looking for them.
Switzerland has the second highest per capital value added manufacturing, Singapore
is first.
About 19% of the value-added in their economies is attributable to manufacturing. You
find the same ratio in Serbia, which no one will mistake for an affluent and economically
dynamic country.
2. Neither the Japanese Emperor nor the President of Germany take an oath of allegiance
to the United States or any American official.
3. Neither the Chancellor of Germany nor the Prime Minister of Japan are incapable of
making a decision without consulting the U.S. Embassy. (Manned by Caroline Kennedy at one
point in Japan).
About 19% of the value-added in their economies is attributable to manufacturing.
The amusing thing is that the stock-in-trade of both Switzerland and Singapore is some
combo of private banking, tax-avoidance and money laundering. That's why the per capita
income is so high. It's bloated by the portfolio income of wealthy people like Marc Rich,
Robert Mugabe and Zuckerberg's Brazilian business partner.
Destroying the Taliban government, yes. Building "democracy" is just stupid, though.
They should've quickly left after the initial victory and let the Afghans to just eat each
other with Stroganoff sauce if they so wished. It's not our business.
In fact destroying the Taliban government was both illegal and foolish (but the latter was
by far the more important). It seems clear now the Taliban were quite willing to hand bin
Laden over for trial in a third party country, and pretty clearly either had had no clue what
he had been planning or were crapping themselves at what he had achieved. Bush declined that
offer because he had an urgent political need to be seen to be kicking some foreign ass in
order to appease American shame.
The illegality is not a particularly big deal in the case of Afghanistan because it's
clear that in the post-9/11 context the US could easily have gotten UNSC authorisation for
the attack and made it legal. Bush II deliberately declined to do so precisely in order to
make the point that the US (in Americans' view) is above petty details of international law
and its own treaty commitments. A rogue state, in other words.
But an attack on Afghanistan was unnecessary and foolish (for genuine American national
interests, that is, not for the self-interested lobbies driving policy obviously), as the
astronomical ongoing costs have demonstrated. A trial of bin Laden would have been highly
informative (and some would argue that was why the US regime was not interested in such a
thing), and would if nothing else have brought him out into the open. Yes, he would have had
the opportunity to grandstand, but if the US were really such an innocent victim of
unprovoked aggression why would the US have anything to fear from that? The whole world,
pretty much, was on the US's side after 9/11.
The US could have treated terrorism as what it is, after 9/11 -- a criminal matter. It
chose instead to make it a military matter, because that suited the various lobbies seeking
to benefit from a more militarised and aggressive US foreign policy. The result of a US
attack on the government of (most of) Afghanistan would always have been either a chaotic
jihadi-riddled anarchy in Afghanistan worse than the Taliban-controlled regime that existed
in 2001, or a US-backed regime trying to hold the lid down on the jihadists, that the US
would have to prop up forever. And so indeed it came to pass.
@Art
Deco The way I see it "an ocean of blood" in Iraq was unleashed following US invasion,
and it included plenty of American blood. Young healthy American men lost their lifes in
Iraq, lost their their bodyparts (arms, legs, their nuts), lost their sanity, and as an
American I can't imagine that you were pleased about that. Certainly, most of your countrymen
didn't feel this way, they didn't feel this war was worth it for the US.
@Art
Deco That's just dumb. The reasons officially given for the invasion of Iraq in 2003 --
Saddam's regime hiding weapons of mass destruction and being an intolerable threat to the
outside world -- were a transparently false pretext for war, and that was clearly discernible
at the time. Saddam's regime was extremely brutal and increasingly Islamic or even Islamist
in character, but by 2003 it wasn't a serious threat to anyone outside Iraq anymore the worst
thing it did was send money to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers (bad, but hardly
an existential threat). Admittedly there was the question how to deal with his regime in
coming years, whether to eventually relax sanctions or to keep them in place for the
foreseeable future. But there was no urgent need to invade Iraq that was purely a war of
choice which the US started in a demented attempt at reshaping the region according to its
own preferences. If you don't understand why many people find that rather questionable, it's
you who needs to get out more.
@Art
Deco Hungary joined NATO a few days (weeks? can't remember) before the start of the
Kosovo-related bombardment of Serbia. I attended university in a city in the south of
Hungary, close to the Serbian border. I could see the NATO planes flying by above us every
night when going home from a bar or club (both of which I frequented a lot).
I was a staunch Atlanticist at the time, and I believed all the propaganda about the
supposed genocide which later turned out not to have gone through the formality of actually
taking place. But it was never properly reported as the scandal it was -- it was claimed that
the Serbs were murdering tens, perhaps hundreds of thousands of Kosovo Albanians, but it
never happened. They might have killed a few hundred, at worst a few thousand civilians, but
that's different from what the propaganda claimed at the time. I only found out that there
was no genocide of Albanians in Kosovo when I searched the internet for it some time after
the Iraq invasion. By that time I was no longer an Atlanticist. Most people are totally
unaware that there was any lying going on while selling us the war.
Yes. It was the thing which opened my eyes and made me question some previous policies,
especially the bombardment of Serbia. I wasn't any longer comfortable of being in NATO,
especially since it started to get obvious that Hungarian elites (at least the leftists among
them) used our membership to dismantle our military and use the savings on handouts for their
electorate, or -- worse -- outright steal it. While it increasingly looked like NATO wasn't
really protecting our interests, since our enemies were mostly our neighbors (some of them).
This kind of false safety didn't feel alright.
@reiner
Tor "Yes. It was the thing which opened my eyes"
Same for me. I was 15 during the Kosovo war and believed NATO's narrative, couldn't
understand how anybody could be against the war, given previous Serb atrocities during the
Bosnian war it seemed to make sense. And after 9/11 I was very pro-US, e.g. I argued
vehemently with a stupid leftie teacher who was against the Afghanistan war (and I still
believe that war was justified, so I don't think I'm just some mindless anti-American fool).
But Iraq was just too much, too much obvious lying and those lies were so stupid it was hard
not to feel that there was something deeply wrong with a large part of the American public if
they were gullible enough to believe such nonsense. At least for me it was a real turning
point in the evolution of my political views.
As I recall the Sunnies and Shias killed and disfigured American servicemen
together,
The amusing thing is that American apologists for their country's military interventionism
like Art Deco more usually spend their time heaping all the blame on Iran and the Shia. As
well as internet opinionators, that incudes some of the most senior US military figures like
obsessively anti-Iranian SecDef James Mattis:
That's something that ought to seriously concern anyone with a rational view of world
affairs.
which caused Americans to elect Obama and run away from the country.
In fact the Americans had already admitted defeat and agreed to pull out before Obama took
office. Bush II signed the withdrawal agreement on 14th December 2008. After that, US forces
in Iraq were arguably no longer occupiers and were de jure as well as de facto present on the
sufferance of the Iraqi government. The US regime had clearly hoped to have an Iraqi
collaboration government for the long term, as a base from which to attack Iran, but the long
Iraqi sunni and shia resistances scuppered that idea. The sunnis had fought hard, but were
mostly defeated and many of them ended up collaborating with the US occupiers, as indeed had
much of the shia, for entirely understandable reasons in both cases.
Military occupations are morally complicated like that.
Were we defeated, Iraq would be ruled by the Ba'ath Party or networks of Sunni
tribesman. It is not. This isn't that difficult Randal.
Well this is an old chestnut that is really just an attempt to abuse definitions of
victory and defeat on your part.
The US invasion of Iraq itself was initially a military success. It ended in complete
military victory over the Iraqi regime and nation, the complete surrender of the Iraqi
military and the occupation of the country.
However, the US regime's wider war aims were not achieved because they were unable to
impose a collaboration government and use the country as a base for further projection of US
power in the ME (primarily against Iran, on behalf of Israel), and the overall result of the
war and the subsequent occupation was catastrophic for any honest assessment of American
national interests (as opposed to the interests of the lobbies manipulating US regime
policy). The costs were significant, the reputational damage was also significant, and the
overall result was to replace a contained and essentially broken opponent with vigorous sunni
jihadist forces together with a resurgent Iran unwilling to kowtow to the US as most ME
states are.
So the best honest assessment is that the US was defeated in Iraq, despite an initial
military victory.
The amusing thing is that American apologists for their country's military
interventionism like Art Deco more usually spend their time heaping all the blame on Iran
and the Shia. As well as internet opinionators, that incudes some of the most senior US
military figures like obsessively anti-Iranian SecDef James Mattis
I suspect the reason this happens is because ambitious American officers know that hating
Iran (hating enemies of Israel in general) is what gets you promoted. It wasn't an accident
that James Mattis was appointed Secretary of Defense -- he is Bill Kristol's favourite.
@Art
Deco US military is still butthurt over the Iran's support for Shia militias, targeting
US troops during Iraq occupation. Clearly, the Shias hurt them a lot, and it was very
unexpected for the US, because Americans actually brought Shias into power.
@Art
Deco Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden
weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist in 2003. Your statement that this was merely
one item "on the list of the concerns" Bush had, amounts to an admission that this was merely
a pretext and that the real object of the war was a political reordering of the region
according to US preferences (which of course backfired given that the Iraq war increased
Iran's power and status).
Calling me "Eurotrash" oh well, I get it, US nationalists like you think you're the
responsible adults dealing with a dangerous world, while ungrateful European pussies favor
appeasement, are free riders on US benevolent hegemony etc. I've heard and read all that a
thousand times before, it's all very unoriginal by now.
Official justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden
weapons of mass destruction which didn't exist in 2003.
It was one of many reasons. You don't set a guy on Death Row free just because one of the
charges didn't stick. The biggest reason was Saddam's invasion of Kuwait, which should have
resulted in his removal from power. We settled on a truce because George HW Bush did not want
to pay the price, and the (mostly-Sunni) Arab coalition members did not want (1) a democracy
in Iraq and (2) a Shiite-dominated Iraq. Bush's son ended up footing the political bill for
that piece of unfinished business. The lesson is that you can delay paying the piper, but the
bill always comes due.
Bush's son ended up footing the political bill for that piece of unfinished
business.
No, Bush II chose to invade Iraq entirely voluntarily. There was no good reason to do so,
and the very good reasons why his father had sensibly chosen not to invade still largely
applied (even more so in some cases, given Iraq's even weaker state).
The lesson is that you can delay paying the piper, but the bill always comes due.
This is of course self-serving fantasy. The Russians told you there was no need to invade
Iraq. The Germans told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The French told you there was no
need to invade Iraq. The Turks told you there was no need to invade Iraq. The sensible
British told you there was no need to invade Iraq, but for some reason you preferred to
listen to the words of the staring-eyed sycophant who happened to be Prime Minister at the
time, instead.
More fool the Yanks. Most everyone else honest on the topic was giving you sensible
advice. Bush II (whose incompetence is now generally accepted) chose to ignore that advice,
and committed what is generally now regarded as the most egregious example of a foreign
policy blunder since Vietnam at least, and probably since Suez, and will likely be taught as
such around the world (including in the US, once the partisan apologists have given up trying
to rationalise it) for generations to come.
For the last four years, Iran was shipping weapons and ammunition to the Syrian Arab
Army (SAA) and Hezbollah through an air route. This method allowed Israel to identify,
track and target Iranian arms shipments to Hezbollah easily, as only few cargo airplanes
land in Syrian airports every day.
However, now Israel will be incapable of identifying any Iranian shipment on the new
ground route, as it will be used by thousands of Iraq and Syrian companies on daily basis
in the upcoming months. Experts believe that this will give Hezbollah and the SAA a huge
advantage over Israel and will allow Iran to increase its supplies to its allies.
The sensible British were a co-operating force in invading Iraq.
That was the staring-eyed sycophant's work.
The man who opened the floodgates to immigration because he thought multiculturalism is a
great idea.
As for the rest, they all have their shticks and interests
Of course. Unlike the exceptional United States of course, the only country in the world
whose government never has any axe to grind in the nobility of purpose and intent it displays
in all the wars it has ever fought.
You seem to be degenerating into a caricature of the ignorant, arrogant American.
@Felix
Keverich Similarly, it doesn't seem likely that the US government will give up its
control and influence over the "independent media" that many Americans still think we have.
@Art
Deco Folks in Belarus shouldn't make up their minds about applying to the EU until they
speak with regular German, French, English, and Swedish people about the effects of the
Islamic / Third World immivasion that the EU has imposed on them. My wife and I speak &
correspond with Germans living in Germany frequently, and the real state of affairs for
non-elite Germans is getting worse fast, with no good end in sight.
Anyone who does not desire to die or at best live subjugated under sharia -- and sharia
run largely by cruel dimwits from Africa and Arabia -- ought to stay out (or GET out of) the
EU.
Well history has proven them to have been correct and the US regime wrong on Iraq, so
that pretty much tells you how far your arrogance will get you outside your own echo
chamber.
"History" has proven no such thing. What went wrong in Iraq was principally Bush's
underestimate of the number of American casualties and the cost to the US treasury*, for
which he and the GOP paid a serious political price. However, it's also clear that the
Shiites and Kurds, an 80% majority, have no regrets that Saddam is gone. While both
communities seem to think that we should continue to bear a bigger chunk of the price of
pacifying Iraq's bellicose Sunni Arabs, it's also obvious that they are not electing Tikritis
or even Sunni Arabs to office, as they would if they were nostalgic for Saddam's rule. The
big picture, really, is that the scale of the fighting has probably convinced both Shiites
and Kurds that they could not have toppled Saddam without the assistance of Uncle Sam. They
could certainly not have kept Iraq's revived Sunni Arabs (in the form of ISIS) at bay without
American assistance.
* These costs were larger than projected, but small compared to the Korean and Vietnam
Wars. Whether or not Iraq can be secured as an American ally in the decades ahead, both the
gamble and the relatively nugatory price paid will, in retrospect, be seen as a reasonable
one, given Iraq's strategic location.
What went wrong in Iraq was principally Bush's underestimate of the number of American
casualties and the cost to the US treasury
No, what went wrong in Iraq from the pov of any kind of honest assessment of an American
national interest was that an unnecessary war was fought justified by lies that have
seriously discredited the nation that told them, and that the results of the war were hugely
counter to said American national interests: the conversion of a contained and broken former
enemy state into a jihadist free fire training and recruitment zone combined with a strong
ally of a supposed enemy state, Iran.
Whether the direct material cost of the war is acceptable or not is rather beside the
point. It's a matter between Bush II and the parents, relatives and friends of those
Americans who lost their lives or their health, and between Bush II and American taxpayers.
If it had been achieved cost-free it still wouldn't have been worth it, because it was a
defeat.
But it's no accident that the costs of the war were "underestimated". As usual, if the
Bush II regime had been honest about the likely costs of their proposed war, there would have
been a political outcry against it and they'd have been forced to back down as Obama was over
Syria.
However, it's also clear that the Shiites and Kurds, an 80% majority, have no regrets
that Saddam is gone
Amusing to see you are currently pretending that what Iraqi Kurds and Shiites feel
matters. It's always entertaining to see just how shameless Americans can be at their game of
alternately pretending to care for foreigners' views (when they need to justify a war) and
regarding foreigners with utter contempt and disregard (when said foreigners are saying
something Americans don't like to hear).
They could certainly not have kept Iraq's revived Sunni Arabs (in the form of ISIS) at
bay without American assistance.
Well that partly depends upon how much support the US regime allowed its Gulf sunni Arab
proxies to funnel to said jihadists, I suppose. But most likely they'd have crushed them in
due course with Iranian backing.
In Iraq, IS were fine as long as they stayed out of the strongly Shiite areas in the
south. They'd have quickly been whipped if they'd ventured there. Just as IS were fine in
Syria as long as they were taking relatively remote land over from a government and army in
desperate straits as a result of a disastrous externally funded civil war, but were soon
beaten when the Russians stepped in and started actually fighting them rather than pretending
to do so only as long as it didn't interfere too much with their real goal of overthrowing
the Syria government, American-style.
@German_reader
I see that Art Deco got more active than usual. Seems that the destruction of Iraq is close
to his heart. Several days ago Ron Unz had this to say about him:
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/#comment-2116171
Exactly! It's pretty obvious that this "Art Deco" fellow is just a Jewish-activist type,
and given his very extensive posting history, perhaps even an organized "troll." But he's
certainly one of the most sophisticated ones, with the vast majority of his comments being
level-headed, moderate, and very well-informed, generally focusing on all sorts of other
topics, perhaps with the deliberate intent of building up his personal credibility for the
periodic Jewish matters that actually so agitate him.
To which I added:
http://www.unz.com/jderbyshire/time-to-stop-importing-an-immigrant-overclass/#comment-2116402
The quality and wide range of his comments are really impressive. As if it was coming form
a super intelligent AI Hal that has access to all kinds of databases at his finger tips.
And then there is always the same gradient of his angle: the reality is as it is; reality
is as you have been told so far; do not try to keep coming with weird theories and
speculations because they are all false; there is nothing interesting to see. His quality
and scope are not congruent with his angle. All his knowledge and all his data and he
hasn't found anything interesting that would not conform to what we all read in newspapers.
Amazing. If America had its High Office of Doctrine and Faith he could have been its
supreme director.
His overactivity here is somewhat out of character and after reading his comments here I
doubt that Ron Unz would call him "one of the most sophisticated ones." I also would take
back the "really impressive" part too. Perhaps some other individuum was assigned to
Art Deco handle this Monday.
Speaking of US foreign policy stupidity and arrogance, the response to the latest evidence
that Trump will continue the inglorious Clinton/Bush II/Obama tradition of destructive
corrupt/incompetent buffoonery:
And here's the profoundly noxious Nikki Haley "lying for her country" (except, bizarrely,
it isn't even really for her own country). Her appointment by Trump certainly was one of the
first signs that he was going to seriously let America down:
The resolution was denounced in furious language by the US ambassador to the UN, Nikki
Haley, who described it as "an insult" that would not be forgotten. "The United States will
not be told by any country where we can put our embassy," she said.
"It's scandalous to say we are putting back peace efforts," she added. "The fact that
this veto is being done in defence of American sovereignty and in defence of America's role
in the Middle East peace process is not a source of embarrassment for us; it should be an
embarrassment to the remainder of the security council."
The real nature of the UN resolution the execrable Haley was so faux-offended by:
The UK and France had indicated in advance that they would would back the text, which
demanded that all countries comply with pre-existing UNSC resolutions on Jerusalem, dating
back to 1967, including requirements that the city's final status be decided in direct
negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians.
But requiring Israel and its US poodles to act in good faith is surely anti-Semitic, after
all. The real beneficiary (he thinks, at least) of Trump's and Haley's buffoonery was
suitably condescending in his patting of his poodles' heads:
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, tweeted: "Thank you, Ambassador Haley.
On Hanukkah, you spoke like a Maccabi. You lit a candle of truth. You dispel the darkness.
One defeated the many. Truth defeated lies. Thank you, President Trump."
@utu Art
Deco isn't Jewish iirc, but an (Irish?) Catholic from the northeastern US. And I suppose his
views aren't even that extreme, but pretty much standard among many US right-wingers (a
serious problem imo), so it makes little sense to attack him personally.
@German_readerOfficial justification for the Iraq war was concern about Iraq's supposedly hidden
weapons
The fact that Iraq had no WMD was actually critical to making the claims that it had them.
If Iraq had them it would officially relinquish them which would take away the ostensive
cause for the invasion.
I am really amazed that now 14 years after the invasion there are some who still argue
about the WMD. Iraq was to be destroyed because this was the plan. The plan to reorganize the
ME that consisted of destruction of secular and semi-secure states like Iraq and Syria. The
WDM was just an excuse that nobody really argued for or against in good faith including Brits
or Germans or Turks. Everybody knew the writing on the wall.
@German_readerit makes little sense to attack him personally
Yes, personal attacks are counterproductive but I can't resit, I just can't help it, so I
must to say what I said already several times in the past: you are a cuck. You are a hopeless
case.
The plan to reorganize the ME that consisted of destruction of secular and
semi-secure states like Iraq and Syria.
Has to be admitted though that Iraq became increasingly less secular during the 1990s,
with Saddam's regime pushing Islamization as a new source of legitimacy. It's probably no
accident that former Baath people and officers of Saddam's army were prominent among the
leadership of IS.
Still hardly sufficient reason for the Iraq war though.
@utu
With all due respect to you and Ron Unz, but the idea that someone like "Art Deco" is an
"organized troll" who creates an elaborate fake persona (which he then maintains over
multiple years on several different websites -- I first encountered him years ago on the
American conservative's site) to spread pro-Jewish views seems somewhat paranoid to me.
I have no reason to doubt he's genuine (as far as that's possible on the internet), his views
aren't unusual.
@German_reader
Agree with everything you just wrote. And please understand, I love the Germans and I'm angry
at them in the way that you'd be angry at a brother who refuses to stop destroying himself
with drugs or whatever.
@German_readerStill hardly sufficient reason for the Iraq war though.
What do you mean by that? Are you so out of touch? You really do not understand what was
the reason behind Iraq 2003 war and then fucking it up when Gen. Garner was recalled and
replaced with Paul Bremer who drove Iraq to the ground? Repeat after me: Iraq was destroyed
because this was the only objective of 2003 Iraq war. The mission was accomplished 100%.
@Art
Deco I respectfully disagree with you about the Iraq war (one of the few areas on which I
disagree with you).
I suppose had the West made a massive investment in Iraq, secured its Christian
population, loaded it with US troops, and did to it what was done to Japan, over several
decades, transforming it into a prosperous democratic US ally, removing Saddam (who deserves
no sympathy) might have been a nice thing. It would have been a massive financial drain but
having a "Japan", other than Israel, in the heart of the Middle East might have been worth it
(I am not a Middle East expert but it seems the Shah's Persia was sort of being groomed for
such a role).
Instead, it ended up being a disaster -- 100,000s dead in sectarian massacres, Christian
population nearly destroyed, and other than Kurdish areas, an ally either of Iran or of
militant anti-American Sunnis. At the cost, to the USA, of dead Americans, lots of money, and
loss of soft power. I also suspect that America being stuck and preoccupied in Middle East
conflicts gave room for Russia to act. I guess its a tribute to how strong America is, that
it is still doing pretty well in spite of the debacle. A lesser power such as the USSR would
have been sunk.
That's rght, and it happens to the whole world too including those countries destroyed by US
and under its sanction. The bombastic propaganda MSM fake news and Hollywood have brainwashed
all to harbour delusion that US is a perfect heaven paved with gold, honey and milk, people
of high morality and freedom. Wait till they live there to find out reality of DemoNcracy
made in USA.
"... Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike. ..."
There was a sinister plot to meddle in the 2016
election, after all. But it was not orchestrated from the Kremlin; it was an entirely homegrown
affair conducted from the inner sanctums---the White House, DOJ, the Hoover Building and
Langley----of the Imperial City.
Likewise, the perpetrators didn't speak Russian or write in the Cyrillic script. In fact,
they were lifetime beltway insiders occupying the highest positions of power in the US
government.
Here are the names and rank of the principal conspirators:
John Brennan, CIA director;
Susan Rice, National Security Advisor;
Samantha Power, UN Ambassador;
James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence;
James Comey, FBI director;
Andrew McCabe, Deputy FBI director;
Sally Yates, deputy Attorney General,
Bruce Ohr, associate deputy AG;
Peter Strzok, deputy assistant director of FBI counterintelligence;
Lisa Page, FBI lawyer;
and countless other lessor and greater poobahs of Washington power, including President
Obama himself.
To a person, the participants in this illicit cabal shared the core trait that made Obama
such a blight on the nation's well-being. To wit, he never held an honest job outside the halls
of government in his entire adult life; and as a careerist agent of the state and practitioner
of its purported goods works, he exuded a sanctimonious disdain for everyday citizens who make
their living along the capitalist highways and by-ways of America.
The above cast of election-meddlers, of course, comes from the same mold. If Wikipedia is
roughly correct, just these 10 named perpetrators have punched in about 300 years of
post-graduate employment---and 260 of those years (87%) were on government payrolls or
government contractor jobs.
As to whether they shared Obama's political class arrogance, Peter Strzok left nothing to
the imagination in his now celebrated texts to his gal-pal, Lisa Page:
"Just went to a southern Virginia Walmart. I could SMELL the Trump support......I LOATHE
congress....And F Trump."
You really didn't need the ALL CAPS to get the gist. In a word, the anti-Trump cabal is
comprised of creatures of the state.
Their now obvious effort to alter the outcome of the 2016 election was nothing less than the
Imperial City's immune system attacking an alien threat, which embodied the very opposite
trait: That is, the Donald had never spent one moment on the state's payroll, had been elected
to no government office and displayed a spirited contempt for the groupthink and verities of
officialdom in the Imperial City.
But it is the vehemence and flagrant transparency of this conspiracy to prevent Trump's
ascension to the Oval Office that reveals the profound threat to capitalism and democracy posed
by the Deep State and its prosperous elites and fellow travelers domiciled in the Imperial
City.
That is to say, Donald Trump was no kind of anti-statist and only a skin-deep populist, at
best. His signature anti-immigrant meme was apparently discovered by accident when in the early
days of the campaign he went off on Mexican thugs, rapists and murderers----only to find that
it resonated strongly among a certain element of the GOP grass roots.
But a harsh line on immigrants, refugees and Muslims would not have incited the Deep State
into an attempted coup d'état; it wouldn't have mobilized so overtly against Ted Cruz,
for example, whose positions on the ballyhooed terrorist/immigrant threat were not much
different.
No, what sent the Imperial City establishment into a fit of apoplexy was exactly two things
that struck at the core of its raison d' etre.
First was Trump's stated intentions to seek rapprochement with Putin's Russia and his
sensible embrace of a non-interventionist "America First" view of Washington's role in the
world. And secondly, and even more importantly, was his very persona.
That is to say, the role of today's president is to function as the suave, reliable
maître d' of the Imperial City and the lead spokesman for Washington's purported good
works at home and abroad. And for that role the slovenly, loud-mouthed, narcissistic,
bombastic, ill-informed and crudely-mannered Donald Trump was utterly unqualified.
Stated differently, welfare statism and warfare statism is the secular religion of the
Imperial City and its collaborators in the mainstream media; and the Oval Office is the bully
pulpit from which its catechisms, bromides and self-justifications are propagandized to the
unwashed masses---the tax-and-debt-slaves of Flyover America who bear the burden of its
continuation.
Needless to say, the Never Trumpers were eminently correct in their worry that Trump would
sully, degrade and weaken the Imperial Presidency. That he has done in spades with his endless
tweet storms that consist mainly of petty score settling, self-justification, unseemly boasting
and shrill partisanship; and on top of that you can pile his impetuous attacks on friend, foe
and bystanders (e.g. NFL kneelers) alike.
Yet that is exactly what has the Deep State and its media collaborators running scared. To
wit, Trump's entire modus operandi is not about governing or a serious policy agenda---and most
certainly not about Making America's Economy Great Again. (MAEGA)
By appointing a passel of Keynesian monetary central planners to the Fed and launching an
orgy of fiscal recklessness via his massive defense spending and tax-cutting initiatives, the
Donald has more than sealed his own doom: There will unavoidably be a massive financial and
economic crisis in the years just ahead and the rulers of the Imperial City will most certainly
heap the blame upon him with malice aforethought.
In the interim, however, what the Donald is actually doing is sharply polarizing the country
and using the Bully Pulpit for the very opposite function assigned to it by Washington's
permanent political class. Namely, to discredit and vilify the ruling elites of government and
the media and thereby undermine the docility and acquiescence of the unwashed masses upon which
the Imperial City's rule and hideous prosperity depend.
It is no wonder, then, that the inner circle of the Obama Administration plotted an
"insurance policy". They saw it coming-----that is, an offensive rogue disrupter who was soft
on Russia, to boot--- and out of that alarm the entire hoax of RussiaGate was born.
As is now well known from the recent dump of 375 Strzok/Gates text messages, there occurred
on August 15, 2016 a meeting in the office of FBI Deputy Director Andrew McCabe (who is still
there) to kick off the RussiaGate campaign. As Strzok later wrote to Page, who was also at the
meeting:
" I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy's office -- that
there's no way he gets elected -- but I'm afraid we can't take that risk......It's like an
insurance policy in the unlikely event that you die before you're 40."
They will try to spin this money quote seven-ways to Sunday, but in the context of
everything else now known there is only one possible meaning: The national security and law
enforcement machinery of Imperial Washington was being activated then and there in behalf of
Hillary Clinton's campaign.
Indeed, the trail of proof is quite clear. At the very time of this August meeting, the FBI
was already being fed the initial elements of the Steele dossier, and the latter had nothing to
do with any kind of national security investigation.
For crying out loud, it was plain old "oppo research" paid for by the Clinton campaign and
the DNC. And the only way that it bore on Russian involvement in the US election was that
virtually all of the salacious material and false narratives about Trump emissaries meeting
with high level Russian officials was disinformation sourced in Moscow, and was completely
untrue.
As former senior FBI official, Andrew McCarthy, neatly summarized the sequence of action
recently:
The Clinton campaign generated the Steele dossier through lawyers who retained Fusion GPS.
Fusion, in turn, hired Steele, a former British intelligence agent who had FBI contacts from
prior collaborative investigations. The dossier was steered into the FBI's hands as it began
to be compiled in the summer of 2016. A Fusion Russia expert, Nellie Ohr, worked with Steele
on Fusion's anti-Trump research. She is the wife of Bruce Ohr, then the deputy associate
attorney general -- the top subordinate of Sally Yates, then Obama's deputy attorney general
(later acting AG). Ohr was a direct pipeline to Yates.....
Based on the publication this week of text messages between FBI agent Peter Strzok and
Lisa Page, the FBI lawyer with whom he was having an extramarital affair, we have learned of
a meeting convened in the office of FBI deputy director Andrew McCabe...... right around the
time the Page FISA warrant was obtained......
Bruce Ohr met personally with Steele. And after Trump was elected, according to Fusion
founder Glenn Simpson, he requested and got a meeting with Simpson to, as Simpson told the
House Intelligence Committee, "discuss our findings regarding Russia and the election."
This, of course, was the precise time Democrats began peddling the public narrative of
Trump-Russia collusion. It is the time frame during which Ohr's boss, Yates, was pushing an
absurd Logan Act investigation of Trump transition official Michael Flynn (then slotted to
become Trump's national-security adviser) over Flynn's meetings with the Russian
ambassador.
Here's the thing. There is almost nothing in the Steele dossiers which is true. At the same
time, there is no real alternative evidence based on hard NSA intercepts that show Russian
government agents were behind the only two acts----the leaks of the DNC emails and the Podesta
emails----that were of even minimal import to the outcome of the 2016 presidential
campaign.
As to the veracity of the dossier, the raving anti-Trumper and former CIA interim chief,
Michael Morrell, settled the matter. If you are paying ex-FSA agents for information on the
back streets of Moscow, the more you pay, the more "information" you will get:
Then I asked myself, why did these guys provide this information, what was their
motivation? And I subsequently learned that he paid them. That the intermediaries paid the
sources and the intermediaries got the money from Chris. And that kind of worries me a little
bit because if you're paying somebody, particularly former [Russian Federal Security Service]
officers, they are going to tell you truth and innuendo and rumor, and they're going to call
you up and say, 'Hey, let's have another meeting, I have more information for you,' because
they want to get paid some more,' Morrell said.
Far from being "verified," the dossier is best described as a pack of lies, gossip, innuendo
and irrelevancies. Take, for example, the claim that Trump lawyer Michael Cohen met with
Russian Federation Council foreign affairs head Konstantin Kosachev in Prague during August
2016. That claim is verifiably false as proven by Cohen's own passport.
Likewise, the dossier 's claim that Carter Page was offered a giant bribe by the head of
Rosneft, the Russian state energy company, in return for lifting the sanctions is downright
laughable. That's because Carter Page never had any serious role in the Trump campaign and was
one of hundreds of unpaid informal advisors who hung around the basket hoping for some role in
a future Trump government.
Like the hapless George Papadopoulos, in fact, Page apparently never met Trump, had no
foreign policy credentials and had been drafted onto the campaign's so-called foreign policy
advisory committee out of sheer desperation.
That is, because the mainstream GOP foreign policy establishment had so completely boycotted
the Trump campaign, the latter was forced to fill its advisory committee essentially from the
phone book; and that desperation move in March 2016, in turn, had been undertaken in order to
damp-down the media uproar over the Donald's assertion that he got his foreign policy advise
from watching TV!
The truth of the matter is that Page was a former Merrill Lynch stockbrokers who had plied
his trade in Russia several years earlier. He had gone to Moscow in July 2016 on his own dime
and without any mandate from the Trump campaign; and his "meeting" with Rosneft actually
consisted of drinks with an old buddy from his broker days who had become head of investor
relations at Rosneft.
Nevertheless, it is pretty evident that the Steele dossier's tale about Page's alleged
bribery scheme was the basis for the FISA warrant that resulted in wiretaps on Page and other
officials in Trump Tower during September and October.
And that's your insurance policy at work: The Deep State and its allies in the Obama
administration were desperately looking for dirt with which to crucify the Donald, and thereby
insure that the establishment's anointed candidate would not fail at the polls.
So the question recurs as to why did the conspirators resort to the outlandish and even
cartoonish disinformation contained in the Steele dossier?
The answer to that question cuts to the quick of the entire RussiaGate hoax. To wit, that's
all they had!
Notwithstanding the massive machinery and communications vacuum cleaners operated by the $75
billion US intelligence communities and its vaunted 17 agencies, there are no digital
intercepts proving that Russian state operatives hacked the DNC and Podesta emails. Period.
Yet when it comes to anything that even remotely smacks of "meddling" in the US election
campaign, that's all she wrote.
There is nothing else of moment, and most especially not the alleged phishing expeditions
directed at 20 or so state election boards. Most of these have been discredited, denied by
local officials or were simply the work of everyday hackers looking for voter registration
lists that could be sold.
The patently obvious point here is that in America there is no on-line network of voting
machines on either an intra-state or interstate basis. And that fact renders the whole election
machinery hacking meme null and void. Not even the treacherous Russians are stupid enough to
waste their time trying to hack that which is unhackable.
In that vein, the Facebook ad buying scheme is even more ridiculous. In the context of an
election campaign in which upwards of $7 billion of spending was reported by candidates and
their committees to the FEC, and during which easily double that amount was spent by
independent committees and issue campaigns, the notion that just $44,000 of Facebook ads made
any difference to anything is not worthy of adult thought.
And, yes, out of the ballyhooed $100,000 of Facebook ads, the majority occurred after the
election was over and none of them named candidates, anyway. The ads consisted of issue
messages that reflected all points on the political spectrum from pro-choice to anti-gun
control.
And even this so-called effort at "polarizing" the American electorate was "discovered" only
after Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its first two searches. Instead,
this complete drivel was detected only after the Senate's modern day Joseph McCarthy, Sen. Mark
Warner, who is the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator
on Internet regulation, showed up on Mark Zuckerberg's doorstep at Facebook headquarters.
In any event, we can be sure there are no NSA intercepts proving that the Russians hacked
the Dem emails for one simple reason: They would have been leaked long ago by the vast network
of Imperial City operatives plotting to bring the Donald down.
Moreover, the original architect and godfather of NSA's vast spying apparatus, William
Binney, has essentially proved that the DNC emails were leaked by an insider who downloaded
them on a memory stick. By conducting his own experiments, he showed that the known download
speed of one batch of DNC emails could not have occurred over the Internet from a remote
location in Russia or anywhere else on the planet, and actually matched what was possible only
via a local USB-connected thumb drive.
So the real meaning of the Strzok/Gates text messages is straight foreword. There was a
conspiracy to prevent Trump's election, and then after the shocking results of November 8, this
campaign morphed into an intensified effort to discredit the winner.
For instance, Susan Rice got Obama to lower the classification level of the information
obtained from the Trump campaign intercepts and other dirt-gathering actions by the
Intelligence Community (IC)--- so that it could be disseminated more readily to all Washington
intelligence agencies.
In short order, of course, the IC was leaking like a sieve, thereby paving the way for the
post-election hysteria and the implication that any contact with a Russian--even one living in
Brooklyn-- must be collusion. And that included calls to the Russian ambassador by the
president-elect's own national security advisor designate.
Should there by any surprise, therefore, that it turns out the Andrew McCabe bushwhacked
General Flynn on January 24 when he called to say that FBI agents were on the way to the White
House for what Flynn presumed to be more security clearance work with his incipient staff.
No at all. The FBI team was there to interrogate Flynn about the transcripts of his
perfectly appropriate and legal conversations with Ambassador Kislyak about two matters of
state----the UN resolution on Israel and the spiteful new sanctions on certain Russian citizens
that Obama announced on December 28 in a fit of pique over the Dems election loss.
And that insidious team of FBI gotcha cops was led by none other than......Peter Strzok!
But after all the recent leaks---and these text messages are just the tip of the
iceberg-----the die is now cast. Either the Deep State and its minions and collaborators in the
media and the Republican party, too, will soon succeed in putting Mike Pence into the Oval
Office, or the Imperial City is about ready to break-out in vicious partisan warfare like never
before.
Either way, economic and fiscal governance is about ready to collapse entirely, making the
tax bill a kind of last hurrah before they mayhem really begins.
In that context, selling the rip may become one of the most profitable speculations ever
imagined.
Not sure why Stockman went off on a tangent about Trump's innumerate economic strategy -
kinda dilutes from an otherwise informative piece for anyone who hasn't a handle on the
underhand shit that's been hitting the fan in recent months. Its like he has to have a go
about it no matter what the main theme. Like PCR and "insouciance". And then there's the
texting...
Clue yourself in, David.
A very small percentage of the public are actually informed about what is really going
down. Those that visit ZH or your website. Fox is the only pro-Trump mainstream TV news
outlet, and as to the NYT, WP et al? The media disinformation complex keep the rest in the
matrix, and it has been very easy to see in action over the last year or so because it has
been so well co-ordinated (and totally fabricated).
Given the blatant and contemptous avoidance of the truth by the MSM (the current litany of
seditious/treasonous actions being a case in point), it is fair to say that Trump's tweets
provide a very real public service - focussing the (otherwise ignorant) public's attention on
many things the aforementioned cunts (I'll include Google and FaecesBook) divert from like
the plague (and making them look utter slime in the process).
I do respect stockman but here's bullshit-call #1: he says that the deep state doesn't
like the divisiveness he causes: bush certainly did that and Obama' did so at an order of
magnitude higher. I don't believe that the left is more upset by trump than we were by Barry-
we're just not a bunch of sniveling, narcissistic babies like they are.
When the details of the FISA warrant application are revealed, it will be like a
megaton-class munition detonating, and the Deep State will bear the brunt of destruction.
Similar mass deception was in play to start the Iraq war as well. Constant bombardment led
to public consensus and even the liberal New York Times endorsed the war. Whenever we see
mass hysteria about something new, we should just go with the flow and not ask any questions
at all. It is best for retaining sanity in this dumbed down and getting more dumber
world.
Susan Rice and Obama should be indicted for illegally wiretapping Trump Towers for the
express purpose of finding oppo research to help Hellary's late term abortiion of a
campaign
This one is deeper but well laid out. Comey & Mueller Ignored McCabe's Ties to Russian
Crime Figures & His Reported Tampering in Russian FBI Cases, Files
Great read, loved the 'Imperial City's immune system' analogy...
I disagree about the economy though.
It feels strange to me that the architect of the Reagan Revolution is unable to see the
makings of another revolution, the Trump Revolution.
We have had 10-20 years of pent up demand in the economy and instead of electing another
neo-Marxist Alynski acolyte, the American people elected a hard charging anti-establishment
bull in a China shop.
Surely Dave can see the potential.
It kills me when people are surprised by a 12 month, 5000 point run up on Wall Street.
For God's sake the United States was run by a fucking commie for 8 years, what the fuck
did you think was gonna happen?
America is divided and will remain divided. I think it will last at least for the next 50
years, maybe longer. The best way out is to limit the federal government and give each state
more responsibility. States can succeed or fail on their own. People will be free to move
where they want.
Somewhere there is a FISA judge who should be defrocked and exposed as a fraud. No sober
judge would accept such evidence for any purpose, much less authorizing government snooping
on a major party candidate for president.
The CIA holds all the videos from Jeff Epstein's Island (20 documented trips by Bill, 6
documented trips by Hillary), I'm sure Bill doing a 12 year old, Hillary and Huma doing an 8
year old girl together, etc. So what are they willing to do for the CIA? Anything at any
cost, getting caught red handed with a dossier is chump change when you look at the big
picture..they don't care and will do anything...ANYTHING to get rid of Trump.
This is the only reason they are so frantic. There is absolutely no other reason they
would play at this level.
As always, Dave puts it all into prospective for even the brain dead. Ya think Joe and his
gang will be talking about this article on their morning talk show today?? I wonder how
Brezenski's daughter is going to tell daddy that the gig is up and they may want to look into
packing a boogie bag just to play it safe?
David Stockman is a flame of hope in a world of dark machievellian thought!
Why did the alt media and the msm all stop reportinmg that McCabe's wife recieved 700
thousand dollars from Terry McAulife (former Clinton campaign manager times 2!) for a
Virginia State Senate run? Quid pro quo? Oh no, never the up and up DemonRats.
So when I hear that the conversation was held in McCabe's office- I want to puke first
then start building the gallows.
fucken brilliant article!! There is a lot I don't like about trump (some of which stockman
discusses above), but as a retired govt worker, I can tell you that he right about what he is
saying here.
One little tidbit that has been lost in all of this:
If the FBI was willing to use their power to back Hillary and defeat Trump at the national
level, what did they try to do in McCabe's wife's state senate campaign? She is a
pediatrician and she ran for state senate. ??? WTF is that about? She's not only a doctor but
a doctor for children. Those people are usually wired to help people. Yet she was going to
for-go being a doctor for a state senate position. ??? And the DNC forked over $700,000 to
put her on the map.
I'm sure the people meeting daily in Andy's office were not pleased with the voter
resistance to his wife and to Hillary. The FBI needs to be shut down. They have become an
opposition research firm for the DNC. Even if they can't find dirt on candidates using the
NSA database, they are able to tap that database to find out political strategies in real
time on opposition The fish is rotten from the head down to the tail.
No matter what article you read here, and don't get me wrong, I love the insight, but
every fucking article is "it's all over. America is doomed, the petro dollar days are over,
China China China. It's getting a bit old. The charts and graphs about stock market
collapse......it becoming an old record that needs changed. If I say it's going to rain every
fucking day, at some point I will be right. That doesn't make me a genius....it makes me
persistent.
It's a Deep State mess and Sessions is trying his best as he cowers in a corner sucking
his thumb.
If they continue to go after Trump, the FBI is going to be found guilty of violating the
Hatch Act by exonerating Hillary. See burner phones. See writing the conclusion in May when
the investigation supposedly ended with Hillary's interview on July 3rd. The FBI will also be
exposed for sedition as they then carried out the phony Russiagate investigation as their
"insurance policy."
However, they have created an expectation with the left that Trump and his minions will be
brought to "justice." If we thought the Left didn't handle losing the election well, they
will not be pleased at losing Russiagate.
"... the same week that former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like "an asset". ..."
Though WaPo's Josh Rogin characterizes the decision as intended to appease hawks while
seeking to avoid broader conflict escalation based on "limited arms sales" (and not approving
some of the heavier weaponry sought by Kiev), the move is likely to further ratchet up tensions
with Russia, which is ironic for the fact that the decision comes the same week that former
Director of National Intelligence
James Clapper said that Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to be handling Trump like
"an asset".
Or perhaps we will be assured this is just more 4-dimensional chess playing between
Trump and Putin to prove that not Putin but the Military Industrial Complex is once again
"unexpectedly" in charge?
"... "I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is. He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," clarifying that he means this "figuratively." ..."
"... Clapper took aim at the news that Putin called Trump on Sunday to thank him and the CIA for sharing information that helped prevent a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, describing the move as a "rather theatric gesture." ..."
"... He said the U.S. and Russia have shared such intelligence "for a long time" and it seemed over the top for Putin to call Trump " for something that goes on below the radar and is not all that visible." ..."
"... The remarks come after Trump said the U.S. is in competition with "revisionist" powers like Russia and China in a policy release about national security, while also stating in a speech that he wants to form a "great partnership" with them. Clapper said he found the message to be contradictory. ..."
"... Clapper's remarks on CNN come after he and over a dozen other former national security, intelligence and foreign policy officials filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit earlier this month against the Trump campaign and Republican operative Roger Stone. The brief details how Russia uses "active measures" and "actors" to spread disinformation and influence politics worldwide. "These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian businessmen," the brief reads. ..."
"I think this past weekend is illustrative of what a great case officer Vladimir Putin is.
He knows how to handle an asset, and that's what he's doing with the president," Clapper said
on CNN's "The Lead with Jake Tapper," clarifying that he means this "figuratively."
Clapper took aim at the news that Putin
called Trump on Sunday to thank him and the CIA for sharing information that helped prevent
a terrorist attack in St. Petersburg, describing the move as a "rather theatric gesture."
He said the U.S. and Russia have shared such intelligence "for a long time" and it seemed
over the top for Putin to call Trump " for something that goes on below the radar and is not
all that visible."
The former intelligence chief said Putin likely learned to recruit assets to help with his
interests when he served as an officer in the KBG, which was the Soviet Union's main security
agency.
"You have to remember Putin's background. He's a KGB officer, that's what they do. They
recruit assets. And I think some of that experience and instincts of Putin has come into play
here in his managing of a pretty important account for him, if I could use that term, with our
president," he continued.
The remarks come after Trump said the U.S. is in competition with "revisionist" powers like
Russia and China in a policy release about national security, while also
stating in a speech that he wants to form a "great partnership" with them. Clapper said he
found the message to be contradictory.
He also pointed to his previous experiences of trying to share intelligence with the
Kremlin, stemming back to the early 1990s, describing the attempts as a "one-way street."
Clapper's remarks on CNN come after he and over a dozen other former national security,
intelligence and foreign policy officials
filed an amicus brief in a lawsuit earlier this month against the Trump campaign and
Republican operative Roger Stone. The brief details how Russia uses "active measures" and "actors" to spread disinformation
and influence politics worldwide. "These actors include political organizers and activists, academics, journalists, web
operators, shell companies, nationalists and militant groups, and prominent pro-Russian
businessmen," the brief reads.
"They range from the unwitting accomplice who is manipulated to act in what he believes is
his best interest, to the ideological or economic ally who broadly shares Russian interests, to
the knowing agent of influence who is recruited or coerced to directly advance Russian
operations and objectives," it continues.
"... Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more. ..."
"... The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there, detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors, which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked, angry, disturbed etc. ..."
"... This all stems from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from. ..."
"... AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual "I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card. ..."
So I see where Nunes in a ZeroHedge posting says that there might have been "incidental surveillance" of "Trump" (?Trump associates?
?Trump tower? ?Trump campaign?)
Now to the average NC reader, it kinda goes without saying. But I don't think Trump understands the scope of US government "surveillance"
and I don't think the average citizen, certainly not the average Trump supporter, does either – the nuances and subtleties of
it – the supposed "safeguards".
I can understand the rationale for it .but this goes to show that when you give people an opportunity to use secret information
for their own purposes .they will use secret information for their own purposes.
And at some point, the fact of the matter that the law regarding the "incidental" leaking appears to have been broken, and
that this leaking IMHO was purposefully broken for political purposes .is going to come to the fore. Like bringing up "fake news"
– some of these people on the anti Trump side seem not just incapable of playing 11th dimensional chess, they seem incapable of
winning tic tac toe .
Was Obama behind it? I doubt it and I don't think it would be provable. But it seems like the intelligence agencies are spending
more time monitoring repubs than Al queda. Now maybe repubs are worse than Al queda – I think its time we have a real debate instead
of the pseudo debates and start asking how useful the CIA is REALLY. (and we can ask how useful repubs and dems are too)
If Obama taped the information, stuffed the tape in one of Michelle's shoeboxes, then hid the shoebox in the Whitehouse basement,
he could be in trouble. Ivanka is sure to search any shoeboxes she finds.
Oh the Trump supporters are all over this, don't worry. There are many more levels to what is going on than what is reported
in the fakenews MSM.
Adm Roger of NSA made his November visit to Trump Tower, after a SCIF was installed there, to .be interviewed for a job uh-huh
yeah.
Freedom Watch lawyer Larry Klayman has a whistle-blower who has stated on the record, publicly, he has 47 hard drives with
over 600,000,00 pages of secret CIA documents that detail all the domestic spying operations, and likely much much more.
The rabbit hole goes very deep here. Attorney Klayman has stated he has been trying to out this for 2 years, and was stonewalled
by swamp creatures, so he threatened to go public this week. Several very interesting videos, and a public letter, are out there,
detailing all this. Nunes very likely saw his own conversations transcripted from surveillance taken at Trump Tower (he was part
of the transition team), and realized the jig was up. Melania has moved out of Trump Tower to stay elsewhere, I am sure after
finding out that many people in Washington where watching them at home in their private residence, whichi is also why Pres Trump
sent out those famous angry tweets 2 weeks ago. Democrats on the Committee (and many others) are liars, and very possibly traitors,
which is probably why Nunes neglected to inform them. Nunes did follow proper procedures, notifying Ryan first etc, you can ignore
the MSM bluster there ..observe Nunes body language in the 2 videos of his dual press briefings he gave today, he appears shocked,
angry, disturbed etc.
You all should be happy, because although Pres Trump has been vindicated here on all counts, the more important story for you
is that the old line Democratic Party looks about to sink under the wieght of thier own lies and illegalities. This all stems
from Obama's Jan 16 signing of the order broadening "co-operation" between the NSA and everybody else in Washington, so that mid-level
analysts at almost any agency could now look at raw NSA intercepts, that is where all the "leaks" and "unmasking" are coming from.
AG Lynch, Obama, and countless others knew, or should have known, all about this, but I am sure they will play the usual
"I was too stupid too know what was going on in my own organization" card.
"... Trump has promised to expand the half-million person Army when in fact there is no need for a US ground force; Canada and Mexico are quite benign. The NSS in fact makes it clear that the objective is not defense but increasing world hegemony: "We will advance American influence because a world that supports American interests and reflects our values makes America more secure and prosperous." Baloney, the wars have made America less secure and will continue to do so as new wars on North Korea and Iran are promoted. ..."
"... Thus hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted on the military in a country with dire domestic needs. That's no way to Make America Great Again, is it. That's just being stupid. ..."
Nikki Haley, in her distinct fashion, articulated an "America First" pov at the UNSC
yesterday as she claimed the repudiation of decades of international understandings on the
status of Jerusalem was an expression of American "sovereignty", and criticism of same
amounted to an "insult" that "would not be forgotten." Not a lot of nuance, or diplomacy, on
display and the tantrum was aimed at friends and rivals alike.
The National Security vision seems to place a lot of faith in a version of laissez-faire
libertarian economics which, reading between the lines, will serve as a motivating principle
in extending great power rivalry based on defining the "rules based international system" as
precisely such economic system. That's probably not too different from the "exceptional"
viewpoint of the previous administrations, but expressed, much like Haley, in far blunter
fashion.
Very well said. I would only add that the globalist/financial sector did even better!
@ 15, 20
I am surprised that Russia does not openly support US regime change projects. (sarc)
Afganistan cost 100's of billions and converted the Taliban from allies to enemies.
Iraq cost 100's of billions and converted them from pro Sunni/Gulf to pro-Iranian
Turkey has cost uncounted billions and converted them from pro NATO to pro Russia
Syria cost up to 100 billion and converted the country from pro-west to pro Russia
Yemen cost billions and converted a pro-western ruler (now dead) to anti-western
This is not to mention Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Georgia, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and a host
of other countries in Africa and South America - who all look at Libya and realize the plans
that await them
Really, what other country gets so much bang for their buck? Perhaps this is history's
version of shock and awe for those who arrogate to themselves the power to 'make' it.
Don Bacon@15, Don, projected costs of the Afghan and Iraq wars are not billions but
trillions.
Kennedy School professor Linda Bilmes finds that the all-in costs of the wars in Iraq and
Afghanistan will measure in the $4 trillion to $6 trillion range when all is said and done.
But that's not the most terrifying element of her survey of the fiscal impact of the "war on
terror" and related undertakings. What should really strike fear into your heart is her
finding that "the largest portion of that bill is yet to be paid."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/03/28/cost_of_iraq_linda_bilmes_says_iraq_and_afghanistan_wars_could_cost_6_trillion.html
So much for Trumps 'fix our infrastructure' first promises. instead of MAGA we get MIGA make
Israel great again.
The greatest danger of the US's decline in power relative to the rest of the world is an
overreaction by the US to try to halt such decline. This has been true for a while; Trump's
belligerence just brings it into sharper focus. Obama was actually pretty much the same but
he hid it behind smoother language.
NSS: "We will preserve peace through strength by rebuilding our military so that it remains
preeminent, deters our adversaries, and if necessary, is able to fight and win."
Currently the military is in poor shape. Half the fighter planes can't fly, only one of
eleven aircraft carriers is deployed, and the Pentagon has struggled to send one brigade to
Europe. Morale is low, the Air Force has a deficit of about 2,000 pilots, Navy personnel are
poorly trained in seamanship so collisions occur, and the Army is struggling to recruit
because young people in the recruit pool have drug and weight problems (and better things to
do).
The current "rebuilding" is characterized by spending tons of money on complex systems
that don't work well, like the F-35 strike fighter, the Ford-class aircraft carrier, the
stealth destroyer and the Littoral Combat Ship.
Budget limitations including sequestration mean that the defense budget funds for
rebuilding are not available, and as the out-of-power Democrat Party insists that domestic
needs be considered equally with "defense." (That's the good news.)
Of course the military budget has little to do with defense and mostly has served for
elective wars which the US has consistently lost, and then paid to correct such as the $60
billion used for Iraq reconstruction in a country the US converted from an Iran enemy to an
Iran ally (Iran says thank you Uncle Sam).
Trump has promised to expand the half-million person Army when in fact there is no need
for a US ground force; Canada and Mexico are quite benign. The NSS in fact makes it clear
that the objective is not defense but increasing world hegemony: "We will advance American
influence because a world that supports American interests and reflects our values makes
America more secure and prosperous." Baloney, the wars have made America less secure and will
continue to do so as new wars on North Korea and Iran are promoted.
Thus hundreds of billions of dollars are wasted on the military in a country with dire
domestic needs. That's no way to Make America Great Again, is it. That's just being
stupid.
The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
Notable quotes:
"... Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem as
the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure Zionist
and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch out
2018. ..."
"... But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with or without
Trump and we are seeing it play out now. ..."
"... America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative
ways of operating getting traction. ..."
"... Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic and
foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's "near abroad"
than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria, and they have no
intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and corporations are being
slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by all. ..."
"I won't be optimistic about AmeriKKKa until Russia and/or China announce a Zero Tolerance policy toward US military adventurism
in countries on the borders of Russia/China - by promising to bomb the continental USA if it attacks a Russia/China neighbor.
Imo it's absolutely essential to light a big bonfire under AmeriKKKa's Impunity. And it would be delightful, sobering,
and a big boost for Peace and Diplomacy to hear the Yankees whingeing about being threatened by entities quite capable of following
through on their threats."
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Dec 19, 2017 11:10:32 AM | 14
Hell yes, I'd love that scenario, but never happen. Too much $to be made by kissing up to the empire.
Sad Canuck @ 31: Abso fukken 'lutely!!
b, you better change what you're smoken' if you believe the empire is going isolationist.
@48 They did not want him lol? So many comments in here make me chuckle.
Ok, he has been called the most pro Israel President by Netanyahu himself, his administration just recognized Jerusalem
as the capital of Israel, something even most ardent analysts in here did not predict. His son-in-law who he listens to is a pure
Zionist and the neo-con lap dog Hailey is quite clearly gearing the audience up for a confrontation with Iran. One way or another....watch
out 2018.
But no he is not controlled enough by the Zionists? The overall direction of the empire was never going to change with
or without Trump and we are seeing it play out now.
@26 "I think you would find that the vast majority of Americans would be quite happy to disengage militarily from the rest of
the world, and put resources at work on domestic problems."
Disengage militarily? I would like to think so sleepy but why do they keep getting so involved internationally? Instead of
concentrating on domestic issues putting 'America first' seems to mean bullying any country that doesn't do what it's told.
@ Debsisdead with the end of his comment
" America is a particularly vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink and I just cannot see anyone/movement espousing alternative
ways of operating getting traction.
"
There are those that say the same (vivid example of indoctrinated groupthink) about China, so there might be some competition
in our world yet.
I , for one, want to end private finance and maybe give the China way a go. Anyone else? I did future studies in college and
am intrigued by planning processes at the scale that China has done 13 of....their 5-year plans.
May we live to see structural change in the way our species comports itself......soon, I hope
NemesisCalling, I suggest paying little to know attention to Trump's (or any other politician/oligarch) platitudes.
Simply pay attention to what those monsters actually do. The Trump Administration has continued and expanded US domestic
and foreign policy precisely as has his predecessors. NATO is bigger, better funded, and more heavily deployed along Russia's
"near abroad" than at any time in history. The Pentagon now admits we have 2,000 to 5,000 active "boots on the ground" in Syria,
and they have no intention of ever leaving. Goldman Sachs is embedded in every Executive Branch office. Taxes on the wealthy and
corporations are being slashed soon to be followed in social services, as neo-liberal economics remains the god worshipped by
all.
I remain amazed that people who KNOW that the MSM lies to us constantly, about things big and small, still believe with all
their hearts the MSM narrative that Trump is an "outsider" whom the Establishment hates and has fought against ever since they
gave him $5 billion in free advertising.
Disengage? In 2017, U.S. Special Operations forces, including Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets, deployed to 149 countries around
the world, according to figures provided to TomDispatch by U.S. Special Operations Command. That's around 75 percent of the nations
on the planet.
What the vast majority of Americans might want has been cast aside by this president after he got their votes. There go hope
and change again, damn.
"... You see? Lally's gloating, smug colonialist triumphalism was the norm in expat circles. That was what we were fighting. And sometimes the outrage got out of control. But it's beyond grotesque that our outrage should be picked over for language crimes by a sloppy, inept, conscience-free writer like Lally. When the crimes of Western journalists during the Yeltsin era are chronicled, I kinda think it'll be the callous triumphalism with which she and her Clintonite buddies watched millions of Russians die that are condemned–not the tonal lapses of a low-budget dissident rag like eXile, shaking its puny fist at this corruption. ..."
"... "Each month thousands of Russians were dying prematurely. Such a drop in life expectancy, labeled 'excess deaths,' has always been a standard algorithm in demographers' calculations of the death toll of the great disasters -- whether Stalin's collectivization in the 1930s, Pol Pot's rule in Cambodia in the 1970s, or the famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s. American demographer Nicholas Eberstadt estimated that the number of 'excess deaths' in Russia between 1992 and 1998 was as high as 3 million. By contrast, Eberstadt observed, Russia's losses in World War 1 were 1.7 million deaths." ..."
I lived in Moscow in the Nineties as well. I hugely enjoyed the Exile and read it whenever I had a chance to pick it up in
some restaurant or night club.
Let us put is like that: in 1992 CNN was so scared that they actually paid an East German female friend of mine with tolerable
Russian and less English to travel the subway!!!! Maybe in the US the subway tends to get even more dangerous when it is getting
dangerous above ground. Well possible. In Moscow though the metro was always the safest place you could be. That is because the
subway in Moscow is not just an ordinary means of getting from place to place. It is the marvel of the city, the pride of every
citizen (rightly so) and the very last thing that would turn chaotic.
CNN insanely decided to not let their US employees check out the metro. And their employees didn´t object !!! Not surprisingly
US journalism was bullshit. They had no idea of how ordinary people lived.
The Exile was the exact opposite. They lived like ordinary Muscovites and they knew what was really going on.
Mark Ames was referring to the default of 1998. I was earning money then a travelling engineer for a German tool machine factory.
. How anybody in his right mind could believe that the then merry go round of paying for maturing bonds by issuing ever higher
interest bonds (insanely high interest) could go on forever is beyond me. Everybody and his granny knew that this baby would go
bust. In the German paper of record – the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung – their Moscow economic correspondent openly wrote about
the coming default.
Why didn´t their US colleagues? The exception being the exile? Because they believed their own propaganda. And the reason they
could believe it is because they lived in a secure, insulated bubble and as a rule had no or atrocious Russian.
Same like today. Nothing has changed. If you want to know what goes on in Russia don´t read the US press.
Great piece, Mark! I wrote a comment on the Washington Post piece I suspect nobody read. Even from Lally's hit job, and a little
background research, I picked up that Lally was working to call out the censors. You shouldn't be so modest about your prior paper:
the eXile did great work now and, I'm told by friends in the Moscow expat community, you remain the talk of the town, even if
the town has settled down a lot lately. The WaPo should feel ashamed running that piece but, after deciding to, they should have
approached you and Matt for a fact-check if not a rebuttal. That seems to be the way with a lot of older media though; the quality
control hasn't just gone in the tank – it's been long since flushed – and they don't admit they're wrong even when the mistakes
are blatant. It's why I'm pleased to write for and read NC (and thank you, Yves, for publishing this).
On the "sexism" related to her original allegations she's ignoring the context of Russia, especially back then. Even today
Russia is not a quiet, politically correct kind of place. The choices available to American expat reporters during the Yeltsin
and early Putin era was either try to sterilize, treat it like a zoo with the Russians starring as the animals, or contextualize
and explain. Choosing that last option produced the most accurate reporting while infuriating the highfalutin our-shit-don't-stink
"professional" American press corps. The gall of you and Matt to suggest the Russians aren't any worse obviously still stings,
a decade after you last drank vodka while watching the river in Moscow.
Lally complains about Taibbi being mean to her after she wrote a report in 1999 unironically starting a paragraph with "The
latest affirmation of the anarchy that lies deep in the Russian soul " This just after shock therapy has killed millions of Russians.
In this new screed she has the audacity to
link to it.
You see? Lally's gloating, smug colonialist triumphalism was the norm in expat circles. That was what we were fighting.
And sometimes the outrage got out of control. But it's beyond grotesque that our outrage should be picked over for language
crimes by a sloppy, inept, conscience-free writer like Lally. When the crimes of Western journalists during the Yeltsin era
are chronicled, I kinda think it'll be the callous triumphalism with which she and her Clintonite buddies watched millions
of Russians die that are condemned–not the tonal lapses of a low-budget dissident rag like eXile, shaking its puny fist at
this corruption.
I'm a bit underwhelmed by the explanation that many of the outrageous antics of eXile's authors could be classified as "fighting
smug colonialist triumphalism" or "shaking its puny fist", but I can agree with the fundamental point that it is absolutely shocking
that someone who lived through this:
"Each month thousands of Russians were dying prematurely. Such a drop in life expectancy, labeled 'excess deaths,' has always
been a standard algorithm in demographers' calculations of the death toll of the great disasters -- whether Stalin's collectivization
in the 1930s, Pol Pot's rule in Cambodia in the 1970s, or the famine in Ethiopia in the 1980s. American demographer Nicholas
Eberstadt estimated that the number of 'excess deaths' in Russia between 1992 and 1998 was as high as 3 million. By contrast,
Eberstadt observed, Russia's losses in World War 1 were 1.7 million deaths."
could walk away thinking that THEY were unfairly victimized. Ames and Brecher/Dolan are providing an extremely important service
in highlighting similarly terrifying and shocking dynamics at work today with hacks like Michael Weiss broadcasting toxic garbage
with a big megaphone that helps provide an intellectual veneer for the mass starvation of Yemeni children or sectarian death squads
in Syria or a possible catastrophic war with Iran, so I hope people will continue to listen to them. The same goes for Taibbi
in highlighting systematic racism and abuse of power by banks and lobbyists.
"I said the same thing to Nixon as to others. The national interests of Russia, like other
democracies, are in principle consistent with the universal. And we created the CIS, did not
fight with brotherly Ukraine, made friends with the most developed countries of Europe and
America, were not under sanctions. The Russians did not die, fighting on the dictator's side in
Syria. "Tell me who your friend is, and I'll tell you who you are."
Look at that! It turns out that they did not destroy the USSR, but created the CIS. And they did not fight with Ukraine. Just a civil war was going on almost all the outskirts
of the country. Hundreds of thousands died. And they did not lose the Warsaw bloc. Just gave it to the West for feee.
And the Russians did not die anywhere. Neither in Chechnya, nor in the former Soviet
republics. And the "friendship" with the most developed countries of Europe and America was not at all
to give them for free the national wealth of the country and carry out their "advice" on
destroying the country in order to receive IMF loans.
And they did not ruin the industry of the country, and they did not arrange a hyperinflation
of a million percent, they did destroy army and defense industries built with such sacrifices and sold national assets
for pennies on a dollar, and the country's borders were not violated, and
the population of the country was not plunged into poverty, and banditry and prostitution. And education with health care under them blossomed, and
they did not arrange "Russian scissors" on people savings. Neoliberal scoundrels. Fifth column of neoliberalism in Russi.
All of them.
And no shock therapy and not pushed to sell the last things they have to survive Russian retirees!
And there was no NATO on the borders of Russia. Apparently, this is the "universal values".
And he told the truth!
The whole world lives so - Africa, Asia, Latin America, everywhere the same poverty, military
conflicts, destroyed with the US bombs or not re-built industries. If somewhere more or less everything is in order,
this means that the country's leadership is strangely reconciling its policy with the national
interests of its country, and not with "universal". The US is guided by them? Or Germany, or
France? All of them somehow observe their "national interests". Read the US
budget. There, the word "national interests of the United States" is mentioned frequently word, especially in the chapters on
politics outside the United States. They observe their national interests both in Europe, and in Asia, and in Africa. Even in
Ukraine, they allocate funds in order to realize the "national interests of the United States." And because they observe them,
carry "universal values" throughout the world in the form of the above bombing civilians and killing children. This is their
"universal values"
And it does not matter how the former Minister of Foreign Affairs tries to justify himself
and his colleagues. Their cases during his work from 1990 to 1996. speak for themselves.
Sometimes [for such immigrants] it's really better to be silent.
On January 30th, 2017, the former Foreign Minister of the Russian Federation, Andrei
Kozyrev, spoke to a sold out audience on 'The United States and Russia in a Trump
Administration'. This timely conversation was moderated by Jill Dougherty, Russia expert and
former CNN Foreign Affairs Correspondent. The conversation primarily focused on predicting what
Putin wants from a Trump administration, as well as discussing the areas in which Russia and
the US can cooperate moving forward.
Before these larger questions were addressed, Kozyrev outlined the political and economic
landscapes of both nations which shape US-Russian relations and their subsequent political
postures. From a political standpoint, Kozyrev noted the striking similarity between Putin's
base and Trump supporters. In both cases, their rise to power did not come from the major
cities such as New York or Moscow, but from the rural areas struggling to compete in the global
economy. Kozyrev stated that just as Trump supporters blame China for their economic woes,
Putin's supporters point at European imports as the source of their weakening economy. Kozyrev
seemed dismayed at the rise of the populist parties and protectionist backlash in both nations
and stated, " You can't stop technological progress; you can't stop globalization. You can
temporarily stall it, you can build a wall like an iron curtain fortified with propaganda, but
it doesn't work."
Ms. Dougherty stated that Vladimir Putin has a gained himself a reputation for being a
seasoned and strategic diplomat. She noted that Putin is portrayed as playing his cards
extremely well on the world stage. Kozyrev felt the need to put the record straight, and to put
the results of Putin's policies in perspective. According to Kozyrev, Russia has a plummeting
economy and has extended itself into two wars (Syria and Ukraine) with no prospect of winning
either. Russia's GDP is currently 14x smaller than the GDP of USA. Russia does have nuclear
weapons, but in Kozyrev words, " who cares about nuclear weapons, you can't use nuclear
weapons. Russians aren't suicidal."
Based on the aforementioned political, economic, and military realities, Kozyrev said that
he would advise a Trump administration not to rush into meeting with Putin. Essentially, he
alluded to the potential benefits of allowing Putin to sweat a bit, and let the enormous
differences between the nations in terms of economy, morale, and democracy sink in. Kozyrev
stated humorously: " In sum, Russia's economy and wars are in Trump's words 'a
disaster'."
When Kozyrev was asked what Putin wants from a Trump administration, he answered plainly
that Putin and the Kremlin want and expect "payback" from the Trump administration for their
assistance during the election. While there has been no official government validation of
Russian hacking during the US election, it is Kozyrev's personal opinion that Putin's
government absolutely engaged in cyber hacking that assisted Trump's rise to power. However, he
agreed with Dougherty that not many individuals within the Kremlin trust Trump, and that it is
anyone's guess on Trump's position on NATO, Europe, Russia, or China. Kozyrev stated aptly that
he doesn't think anyone in the world knows what Trump is up to; "we're all following the
tweets, myself included."
After acknowledging the difficulty in predicting Trump policies, the conversation shifted
gears to discuss the ways in which US and Russia might cooperate. Firstly, Kozyrev explained
that it will be nearly impossible for the two nations to cooperate in the ongoing Syrian civil
war. The US and Russia are on opposite sides of the conflict with Russia supporting the Assad
Regime. While US-Russian cooperation in Syria seems fruitless, Kozyrev does believe there is
potential for US and Russia to combat terrorism in other arenas, such as in resisting narco
trafficking in Afghanistan. Other areas Kozyrev identified as opportunities for Russian-US
cooperation range from nuclear non-proliferation – specifically in terms of curtailing
Iran's nuclear weapons development – to continuing collaboration on the International
Space Station.
Despite the challenges facing Russia, Kozyrev remains hopeful for the nation's future and
believes in the Russian people. Kozyrev stood alongside then-President Boris Yeltsin on August
19, 1991 when tanks surrounded the Russian Parliament (also known as the White House), and
watched as thousands of Muscovites surrounded the building as a human shield. This brave act
curtailed the August coup, also known as the K.G.B. Bathhouse Plot, and gives Kozyrev
confidence that Russians will ultimately win the democracy they deserve.
Kozyrev concluded by saying, "I believe in Russia, and I believe in the Russian people. I
tend to believe that Russians will wake up and come back to democratic institutions."
Nineteenth-century empires were often led on from one war to another as a result
of developments which imperial governments did not plan and domestic populations did
not desire. In part this was the result of plotting by individual 'prancing
proconsuls', convinced they could gain a reputation at small risk, given the
superiority of their armies to any conceivable opposition; but it was also the result
of factors inherent in the imperial process.
The difference today is that overwhelming military advantage is possessed not by a
set of competing Western states, but by one state alone. Other countries may
possess elements of the technology, and many states are more warlike than America;
but none possesses anything like the ability of the US to integrate these elements
(including Intelligence) into an effective whole, and to combine them with weight
of firepower, capacity to transport forces over long distances and national
bellicosity. The most important question now facing the world is the use the Bush
Administration will make of its military dominance, especially in the Middle East.
The next question is when and in what form resistance to US domination over the
Middle East will arise. That there will be resistance is certain. It would be
contrary to every historical precedent to believe that such a quasi-imperial
hegemony will not stir up resentment, which sooner or later is bound to find an
effective means of expression.
US domination over the Middle East will, for the
most part, be exercised indirectly, and will provoke less grievance than direct
administration would, but one likely cause of trouble is the 'proletarian
colonisation' of Israel – the Jewish settlements in the Occupied Territories.
Given past experience and the indications now coming from Israel, there is little
reason to hope for any fundamental change in Israeli policies. Sharon may
eventually withdraw a few settlements – allowing the US Administration and the
Israeli lobby to present this as a major concession and sacrifice – but
unless
there is a tremendous upheaval in both Israeli and US domestic politics, he and
his successors are unlikely to offer the Palestinians anything more than tightly
controlled bantustans.
Palestinian terrorism, Israeli repression and wider Arab and Muslim
resentment seem likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
How long it will be before serious resistance grows is hard to tell. In some
19th-century cases, notably Afghanistan, imperial rule never consolidated itself
and was overthrown almost immediately by new revolts. In others, it lasted for
decades without involving too much direct repression, and ended only after
tremendous social, economic, political and cultural changes had taken place not
only in the colonies and dependencies but in the Western imperial countries
themselves. Any attempt to predict the future of the Middle East must recognise
that
the new era which began on 11 September 2001 has not only brought into
the open certain latent pathologies in American and British society, culture and
politics; it has also fully revealed the complete absence of democratic
modernisation, or indeed any modernisation, in all too much of the Muslim world.
The fascination and the horror of the present time is that so many different
and potentially disastrous possibilities suggest themselves. The immediate issue
is whether the US will attack any other state. Or, to put the question another
way: will the US move from hegemony to empire in the Middle East? And if it does,
will it continue to march from victory to victory, or will it suffer defeats which
will sour American public support for the entire enterprise?
For Britain, the most important question is whether Tony Blair, in his capacity
as a senior adviser to President Bush, can help to stop US moves in this direction
and, if he fails, whether
Britain is prepared to play the only role it is
likely to be offered in a US empire: that fulfilled by Nepal in the British Empire
– a loyal provider of brave soldiers with special military skills.
Will the
British accept a situation in which their chief international function is to
provide auxiliary cohorts to accompany the Roman legions of the US, with the added
disadvantage that British cities, so far from being protected in return by the
empire, will be exposed to destruction by 'barbarian' counter-attacks?
As is clear from their public comments, let alone their private
conversations, the Neo-Conservatives in America and their allies in Israel would
indeed like to see a long-term imperial war against any part of the Muslim world
which defies the US and Israel, with ideological justification provided by the
American
mission civilisatrice
– 'democratisation'.
In the words of
the Israeli Major-General Ya'akov Amidror, writing in April under the auspices of
the Jerusalem Centre for Public Affairs, 'Iraq is not the ultimate goal. The
ultimate goal is the Middle East, the Arab world and the Muslim world. Iraq will
be the first step in this direction; winning the war against terrorism means
structurally changing the entire area.'
The Neo-Con model is the struggle
against 'Communism', which they are convinced was won by the Reaganite conflation
of military toughness and ideological crusading. The ultimate goal here would be
world hegemony by means of absolute military superiority.
The Neo-Cons may be deluding themselves, however. It may well be that, as many
US officials say in private, Bush's new national security strategy is 'a doctrine
for one case only' – namely Iraq. Those who take this position can point to the
unwillingness of most Americans to see themselves in imperial terms, coupled with
their powerful aversion to foreign entanglements, commitments and sacrifices. The
Bush Administration may have made menacing statements about Syria, but it has also
assured the American people that the US military occupation of Iraq will last 18
months at the very most. Furthermore, if the economy continues to falter, it is
still possible that Bush will be ejected from office in next year's elections.
Should this happen, some of the US's imperial tendencies will no doubt remain in
place – scholars as different as Andrew Bacevich and Walter Russell Mead have
stressed the continuity in this regard from Bush through Clinton to Bush, and
indeed throughout US history. However, without the specific configuration of
hardline elements empowered by the Bush Administration, American ambitions would
probably take on a less megalomaniac and frightening aspect.
In this analysis, both the grotesque public optimism of the Neo-Con
rhetoric about democratisation and its exaggeration of threats to the US stem from
the fact that it takes a lot to stir ordinary Americans out of their customary
apathy with regard to international affairs. While it is true that an element of
democratic messianism is built into what Samuel Huntington and others have called
'the American Creed', it is also the case that many Americans have a deep
scepticism – healthy or chauvinist according to taste – about the ability of other
countries to develop their own forms of democracy.
In the case of Iraq, this scepticism has been increased by the scenes of
looting and disorder. In addition, there have been well-publicised harbingers both
of incipient ethnic conflict and of strong mass opposition to a long-term US
military presence and a US-chosen Iraqi Government. Even the
Washington Post
,
which was one of the cheerleaders for this war in the 'serious' American press,
and which has not been too anxious to publicise Iraqi civilian casualties, has
reported frankly on the opposition to US plans for Iraq among the country's Shia
population in particular.
Even if most Americans and a majority of the Administration want to move to
indirect control over Iraq, the US may well find that it has no choice but to
exercise direct rule. Indeed, even those who hated the war may find themselves
morally trapped into supporting direct rule if the alternative appears to be a
collapse into anarchy, immiseration and ethnic conflict. There is a tremendous
difference in this regard between Iraq and Afghanistan. In Afghanistan, the mass
of the population has been accustomed to fend for itself with very little help
from the state, very little modern infrastructure and for that matter very little
formal employment. In these circumstances, it was possible for the US to install a
ramshackle pretence of a coalition government in Kabul, with a tenuous truce
between its elements held in place by an international peacekeeping force backed
by US firepower. The rest of the country could be left in the hands of warlords,
clans and ethnic militias, as long as they made their territories open hunting
ranges for US troops in their search for al-Qaida. The US forces launch these
raids from airbases and heavily fortified, isolated camps in which most soldiers
are kept rigidly separated from Afghans.
Doubtless many US planners would be delighted to dominate Iraq in the same
semi-detached way, but Iraq is a far more modern society than Afghanistan, and
much more heavily urbanised: without elements of modern infrastructure and
services and a state to guarantee them, living standards there will not recover.
Iraq needs a state; but for a whole set of reasons, it will find the creation of a
workable democratic state extremely difficult. The destruction of the Baath regime
has involved the destruction of the Sunni Arab military dominance on which the
Iraqi state has depended since its creation by the British. Neither the US nor
anyone else has any clear idea of what to put in its place (if one ignores the
fatuous plan of Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz to install Ahmad Chalabi as an American
puppet and Iraqi strongman). Equally important, the US will not allow the creation
of a truly independent state. Ultimately, it may well see itself as having no
choice but to create the state itself and remain deeply involved not just in
supporting it but in running it, as the British did in Egypt for some sixty years.
Very often – perhaps most of the time – the old imperial powers preferred to
exercise control indirectly, through client states. This was far cheaper, far
easier to justify domestically and ran far less chance of provoking native revolt.
The problem was that the very act of turning a country into a client tended to
cripple the domestic prestige of the client regime, and to place such economic,
political and moral pressures on it that it was liable to collapse. The imperial
power then had the choice of either pulling out (and allowing the area to fall
into the hands of enemies) or stepping in and imposing direct control. This
phenomenon can be seen from Awadh and Punjab in the 1840s to the Soviet invasion
of Afghanistan in 1989.
Of course, the threat to imperial client states did not come only from
within their own borders. In a world where ethnic, clan, religious and personal
loyalties spilled across national boundaries, a power that seized one territory
was likely to find itself inexorably drawn to conquering its neighbours. There
were always military, commercial or missionary interests to agitate for this
expansion, often backed by exiled opposition groups ready to stress that the mass
of the population would rejoice in an imperial invasion to bring them to power.
Whatever the Neo-Cons and the Israeli Government may wish, there is I believe
no fixed intention on the part of the US Administration to attack either Syria or
Iran, let alone Saudi Arabia. What it had in mind was that an easy and crushing US
victory over Iraq would so terrify other Muslim states that they would give up any
support for terrorist groups, collaborate fully in cracking down on terrorists and
Islamist radicals, and abandon their own plans to develop weapons of mass
destruction, thereby making it unnecessary for the US to attack them. This applied
not only to perceived enemies such as Syria, Iran and Libya, but to Saudi Arabia,
Pakistan, Yemen and other states seen as unreliable allies in the 'war against
terrorism'. If the US restricts itself to this strategy and this goal, it may
enjoy success – for a while at least. Several states in the region are clearly
running very scared. Moreover, every single state in the region – including Iran –
feels under threat from the forces of Sunni Islamist revolution as represented by
al-Qaida and its ideological allies; so there is a genuine common interest in
combating them.
But for this strategy to work across such a wide range of states and societies
as those of the Muslim world, US policymakers would have to display considerable
sensitivity and discrimination. These are virtues not usually associated with the
Bush Administration, least of all in its present triumphalist mood. The policy is
in any case not without its dangers. What happens if the various pressures put on
the client regimes cause them to collapse? And what happens if an enemy calls
America's bluff, and challenges it to invade? It is all too easy to see how a new
US offensive could result. Another major terrorist attack on the US could upset
all equations and incite another wave of mass hysteria that would make anything
possible. If, for example, it were once again perceived to have been financed and
staffed by Saudis, the pressure for an attack on Saudi Arabia could become
overwhelming. The Iranian case is even trickier. According to informed European
sources, the Iranians may be within two years of developing a nuclear deterrent
(it's even possible that successful pressure on Russia to cut off nuclear trade
would not make any crucial difference). Israel in particular is determined to
forestall Iranian nuclear capability, and Israeli commentators have made it clear
that Israel will take unilateral military action if necessary. If the US and
Israeli Governments are indeed determined to stop Iran acquiring nuclear weapons,
they may not have much time.
The second factor is the behaviour of the Shias of Iraq, and especially of
Iranian-backed factions. Leading Shia groups have boycotted the initial
discussions on forming a government. If they maintain this position, and if the US
fails to create even the appearance of a viable Iraqi government, with disorder
spreading in consequence, Iran will be blamed, rightly or not, by powerful
elements in Washington. They will use it as an additional reason to strike against
Iranian nuclear sites. In response, Tehran might well promote not only a further
destabilisation of Iraq but a terrorist campaign against the US, which would in
turn provoke more US retaliations until a full-scale war became a real
possibility.
Although the idea of an American invasion of Iran is viewed with horror by
most military analysts (and, as far as I can gather, by the uniformed military),
the latest polls suggest that around 50 per cent of Americans are already prepared
to support a war to prevent Iran acquiring nuclear weapons.
Moreover, the
voices of moderation among the military tend to be the same ones which warned – as
I did – of the possibility of stiff Iraqi resistance to a US invasion and the
dangers of urban warfare in Baghdad, opposed Rumsfeld's plans to invade with
limited numbers of relatively lightly armed troops and felt vindicated in their
concern by the initial setbacks around Nasiriya and elsewhere. The aftermath has
shown Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld to have been correct in their purely military
calculations about Iraq, and this will undoubtedly strengthen them in future
clashes with the uniformed military. Rumsfeld's whole strategy of relying on
lighter, more easily transportable forces is, of course, precisely designed to
make such imperial expeditions easier.
As for the majority of Americans, well, they have already been duped once, by a
propaganda programme which for systematic mendacity has few parallels in peacetime
democracies: by the end of it, between 42 and 56 per cent of Americans (the polls
vary) were convinced that Saddam Hussein was directly involved in the attacks of
11 September. This gave the run-up to the war a peculiarly nightmarish quality in
the US. It was as if the full truth about Tonkin Gulf, instead of emerging in
dribs and drabs over a decade, had been fully available and in the open the whole
time – and the US intervention in Vietnam had happened anyway.
While the special place of Saddam Hussein in American demonology means that
this wouldn't be an easy trick to repeat, the American public's ignorance of
international affairs in general and the Muslim world in particular make it by no
means impossible. It isn't just Fox TV: numerous even more rabid media outlets,
the Christian Coalition and parts of the Israeli lobby are all dedicated to
whipping up hatred of Arabs and Muslims. More important is the fact that most
Americans accept Bush's equation of terrorism and 'evil', which makes it extremely
difficult to conduct any serious public discussion of threats from the Muslim
world in terms which would be acceptable or even comprehensible to a mass American
audience. Add to this the severe constraints on the discussion of the role of
Israel, and you have a state of public debate close to that described by Marcuse.
If America suffered another massive terrorist attack in the coming years, the
dangers would be incomparably greater.
If the plans of the Neo-Cons depended on mass support for imperialism
within the US, they would be doomed to failure. The attacks of 11 September,
however, have given American imperialists the added force of wounded nationalism –
a much deeper, more popular and more dangerous phenomenon, strengthened by the
Israeli nationalism of much of the American Jewish community. Another attack on
the American mainland would further inflame that nationalism, and strengthen
support for even more aggressive and ambitious 'retaliations'.
The terrorists
may hope that they will exhaust Americans' will to fight, as the Vietcong did; if
so, they may have underestimated both the tenacity and the ferocity of Americans
when they feel themselves to have been directly attacked. The capacity for
ruthlessness of the nationalist or Jacksonian element in the American democratic
tradition – as in the firebombing of Japan and North Korea, neither of which had
targeted American civilians – has been noted by Walter Russell Mead, and was
recently expressed by MacGregor Knox, an American ex-soldier, now a professor at
the LSE: Europeans 'may believe that the natural order of things as they perceive
it – the restraint of American power through European wisdom – will sooner or
later triumph. But such expectations are delusional. Those who find militant Islam
terrifying have clearly never seen a militant democracy.'
America could certainly be worn out by a protracted guerrilla struggle on
the scale of Vietnam. It seems unlikely, however, that a similar struggle could be
mounted in the Middle East – unless the US were to invade Iran, at which point all
bets and predictions would be off. Another terrorist attack on the US mainland,
using some form of weapons of mass destruction, far from demoralising the US
population would probably whip it into chauvinist fury.
To understand why successful guerrilla warfare against the US is unlikely
(quite apart from the fact that there are no jungles in the Middle East), it is
necessary to remember that the imperial domination made possible by 19th-century
Western military superiority was eventually destroyed by three factors: first, the
development of military technology (notably such weapons as the automatic rifle,
the grenade and modern explosives) which considerably narrowed the odds between
Western armies and 'native' insurgents. Second, the development of modern
ideologies of resistance – Communist, nationalist or a combination of the two –
which in turn produced the cadres and structures to organise resistance. Third,
weariness on the part of 'metropolitan' populations and elites, stemming partly
from social and cultural change, and partly from a growing awareness that direct
empire did not pay economically.
Guerrilla warfare against the US is now a good deal more difficult because
of two undramatic but immensely important innovations: superbly effective and
light bullet-proof vests and helmets which make the US and British soldier almost
as well protected as the medieval knight; and night-vision equipment which denies
the guerrilla the aid of his oldest friend and ally, darkness. Both of these
advantages can be countered, but it will be a long time before the odds are
narrowed again. Of course, local allies of the US can be targeted, but their
deaths are hardly noticed by US public opinion. More and more, therefore,
'asymmetric warfare' will encourage a move to terrorism.
The absence or failure of revolutionary parties led by cadres working for mass
mobilisation confirms this. The Islamists may alter this situation, despite the
disillusioning fate of the Iranian Revolution. But as far as the nationalists are
concerned, it has been tried in the past, and while it succeeded in expelling the
colonialists and their local clients, it failed miserably to produce modernised
states. Algeria is a clear example: a hideously savage but also heroic rebellion
against a particularly revolting form of colonialism – which eventually led to
such an utterly rotten and unsuccessful independent state that much of the
population eventually turned to Islamic revolution.
And now this, too, is discredited, above all in the one major country where it
succeeded, Iran. Arab states have failed to develop economically, politically and
socially, and they have also failed properly to unite. When they have united for
the purposes of war, they have been defeated. Rebellion against the US may take
place in Iraq. Elsewhere, the mass response to the latest Arab defeat seems more
likely to be a further wave of despair, disillusionment and retreat into private
life – an 'internal emigration'. In some fortunate cases, this may lead to a new
Islamist politics focused on genuine reform and democratic development – along the
lines of the changes in Turkey. But a cynicism which only feeds corruption and
oppression is just as likely a result.
Even if despair and apathy turn out to be the responses of the Arab majority,
there will also be a minority which is too proud, too radical, too fanatical or
too embittered – take your pick – for such a course. They are the natural recruits
for terrorism, and it seems likely that their numbers will only have been
increased by the latest American victory. We must fear both the strengthening of
Islamist terrorism and the reappearance of secular nationalist terrorism, not only
among Palestinians but among Arabs in general. The danger is not so much that the
Bush Administration will consciously adopt the whole Neo-Con imperialist programme
as that the Neo-Cons and their allies will contribute to tendencies stemming
inexorably from the US occupation of Iraq and that the result will be a vicious
circle of terrorism and war. If this proves to be the case, then the damage
inflicted over time by the US on the Muslim world and by Muslims on the US and its
allies is likely to be horrendous. We have already shown that we can destroy
Muslim states. Even the most ferocious terrorist attacks will not do that to
Western states; but if continued over decades, they stand a good chance of
destroying democracy in America and any state associated with it.
"A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the US's parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense"
ecosystems." Well said. National security parasites are so entrenched (and well fed by MIC) that any change of the US foreign
policy is next to impossible. The only legitimate course is more wars and bombing.
Notable quotes:
"... This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even Joe McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise. ..."
"... To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and to leave U.S. policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The Wall Street Journal and by The Washington Post , in an editorial . This is one reason why I have, in a previous commentary , argued that Russia-gate and its promoters have become the gravest threat to American national security. ..."
"... Russia-gate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "dossier" and the still murky role of top U.S. intel officials in the creation of that document.) ..."
"... As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable television, were zealous promotions of Russia-gate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are examples of Russia-gate without Russia. ..."
"... Tillerson may be the last man standing who represents the possibility of some kind of détente. ..."
"... Unfortunately, and I can't believe I'm going to concede this, but FOX News, regarding this one particular issue: the baloney of Russiagate, is probably the most accurate mainstream source out there right now. Despite everything else they get wrong, FOX News, pertaining to Russiagate, is generally (generally) accurate from the bits and pieces I've seen. ..."
"... I agree. It seems sort of like the Nazi regime with more advanced technology and more complete ability for the gestapo to exercise control or more aptly like the Soviet Union where people actually believe the regime's propaganda. ..."
"... The neocon perpetrators of the Russia-gate hoax will continue putting their own greed (for money and power) ahead of American national security. That's who they are and what they do. They conflate global domination with American national security because it benefits them to do so. Sure, they don't want a hot war with Russia because they are neither psychotic nor suicidal. But they are power-crazed: delusional to the extent they think they can prevent the Russian-American hostility provoked by their own machinations from spinning out of control. ..."
"... Reason #3: A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the U.S.'s parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems. ..."
"... Thanks, Professor Cohen, and I happen to think that this phony Russia hacking fabrication is breaking down, along with many other false narratives of the West. So many things are exposing the lies and there are truly good investigators who are weighing in, so I am hopeful that the neocons will be finally outed as hopelessly behind the times. ..."
Despite a lack of evidence at its core – and the risk of nuclear conflagration as its
by-product – Russia-gate remains the go-to accusation for "getting" the Trump
administration, explains Russia scholar Stephen F. Cohen.
The foundational accusation of Russia-gate was, and remains, charges that Russian President
Putin ordered the hacking of Democratic National Committee e-mails and their public
dissemination through WikiLeaks in order to benefit Donald Trump and undermine Hillary Clinton
in the 2016 presidential election, and that Trump and/or his associates colluded with the
Kremlin in this "attack on American democracy."
As no actual evidence for these allegations has been produced after nearly a year and a half
of media and government investigations, we are left with Russia-gate without Russia. (An apt
formulation perhaps first coined in an e-mail exchange by Nation writer James Carden.)
Special counsel Mueller has produced four indictments: against retired Gen. Michael Flynn,
Trump's short-lived national-security adviser, and George Papadopolous, a lowly and
inconsequential Trump "adviser," for lying to the FBI; and against Paul Manafort and his
partner Rick Gates for financial improprieties. None of these charges has anything to do with
improper collusion with Russia, except for the wrongful insinuations against Flynn.
Instead, the several investigations, desperate to find actual evidence of collusion, have
spread to "contacts with Russia" -- political, financial, social, etc. -- on the part of a
growing number of people, often going back many years before anyone imagined Trump as a
presidential candidate. The resulting implication is that these "contacts" were criminal or
potentially so.
This is unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous, potentially more so than even Joe
McCarthy's search for "Communist" connections. It would suggest, for example, that scores of
American corporations doing business in Russia today are engaged in criminal enterprise.
More to the point, advisers to U.S. policy-makers and even media commentators on Russia must
have many and various contacts with Russia if they are to understand anything about the
dynamics of Kremlin policy-making. I myself, to take an individual example, was an adviser to
two (unsuccessful) presidential campaigns, which considered my wide-ranging and longstanding
"contacts" with Russia to be an important credential, as did the one sitting president whom I
advised.
To suggest that such contacts are in any way criminal is to slur hundreds of reputations and
to leave U.S. policy-makers with advisers laden with ideology and no actual expertise. It is
also to suggest that any quest for better relations with Russia, or détente, is somehow
suspicious, illegitimate, or impossible, as expressed recently by Andrew Weiss in The
Wall Street Journal and by
The Washington Post , in an editorial . This is one reason why I have, in a
previous commentary , argued that Russia-gate and its promoters have become the gravest
threat to American national security.
Russia-gate began sometime prior to June 2016, not after the presidential election in
November, as is often said, as an anti-Trump political project. (Exactly why, how, and by whom
remain unclear, and herein lies the real significance of the largely bogus "dossier" and the
still murky role of top U.S. intel officials in the creation of that document.)
That said, the mainstream American media have been largely responsible for inflating,
perpetuating, and sustaining the sham Russia-gate as the real political crisis it has become,
arguably the greatest in modern American presidential and thus institutional political history.
The media have done this by increasingly betraying their own professed standards of verified
news reporting and balanced coverage, even resorting to tacit forms of censorship by
systematically excluding dissenting reporting and opinions.
(For inventories of recent examples, see
Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept and Joe Lauria at Consortiumnews . Anyone interested in exposures of such truly "fake news" should
visit these two sites regularly, the latter the product of the inestimable veteran journalist
Robert Parry.)
Still worse, this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications
once prized for their journalistic standards, where expressed disdain for "evidence" and
"proof" in favor of allegations without any actual facts can sometimes be found. Nor are these
practices merely the ordinary occasional mishaps of professional journalism.
As Greenwald points out, all of the now retracted stories, whether by print media or cable
television, were zealous promotions of Russia-gate and virulently anti-Trump. They, too, are
examples of Russia-gate without Russia.
Flynn and the FBI
Leaving aside possible financial improprieties on the part of General Flynn, his persecution
and subsequent prosecution is highly indicative. Flynn pled guilty to having lied to the FBI
about his communications with the Russian ambassador, Sergey Kislyak, on behalf of the incoming
Trump administration, discussions that unavoidably included some references, however vague, to
sanctions imposed on Russia by President Obama in December 2016, just before leaving
office.
Those sanctions were highly unusual -- last-minute, unprecedented in their seizure of
Russian property in the United States, and including a reckless veiled threat of unspecified
cyber-attacks on Russia. They gave the impression that Obama wanted to make even more difficult
Trump's professed goal of improving relations with Moscow.
Still more, Obama's specified reason was not Russian behavior in Ukraine or Syria, as is
commonly thought, but Russia-gate -- that is, Putin's "attack on American democracy," which
Obama's intel chiefs had evidently persuaded him was an entirely authentic allegation. (Or
which Obama, who regarded Trump's victory over his designated successor, Hillary Clinton, as a
personal rebuff, was eager to believe.)
But Flynn's discussions with the Russian ambassador -- as well as other Trump
representatives' efforts to open "back-channel" communications with Moscow – were
anything but a crime. As I pointed out in
another commentary , there were so many precedents of such overtures on behalf of
presidents-elect, it was considered a normal, even necessary practice, if only to ask Moscow
not to make relations worse before the new president had a chance to review the
relationship.
When Henry Kissinger did this on behalf of President-elect Nixon, his boss instructed him to
keep the communication entirely confidential, not to inform any other members of the incoming
administration. Presumably Flynn was similarly secretive, thereby misinforming Vice President
Pence and finding himself trapped -- or possibly entrapped -- between loyalty to his president
and an FBI agent. Flynn no doubt would have been especially guarded with a representative of
the FBI, knowing as he did the role of Obama's Intel bosses in Russia-gate prior to the
election and which had escalated after Trump's surprise victory.
In any event, to the extent that Flynn encouraged Moscow not to reply in kind immediately to
Obama's highly provocative sanctions, he performed a service to U.S. national security, not a
crime. And, assuming that Flynn was acting on the instructions of his president-elect, so did
Trump. Still more, if Flynn "colluded" in any way,
it was with Israel, not Russia , having been asked by that government to dissuade countries
from voting for an impending anti-Israel U.N. resolution.
Removing Tillerson
Finally, and similarly, there is the ongoing effort by the political-media establishment to
drive Secretary of State Rex Tillerson from office and replace him with a fully neocon,
anti-Russian, anti-détente head of the State Department. Tillerson was an admirable
appointee by Trump -- widely experienced in world affairs, a tested negotiator, a mature and
practical-minded man.
Originally, his role as the CEO of Exxon Mobil who had negotiated and enacted an immensely
profitable and strategically important energy-extraction deal with the Kremlin earned him the
slur of being "Putin's pal." This preposterous allegation has since given way to charges that
he is slowly restructuring, and trimming, the long bloated and mostly inept State Department,
as indeed he should do. Numerous former diplomats closely associated with Hillary Clinton have
raced to influential op-ed pages to denounce Tillerson's undermining of this purportedly
glorious frontline institution of American national security. Many news reports, commentaries,
and editorials have been in the same vein. But who can recall a major diplomatic triumph by the
State Department or a Secretary of State in recent years?
The answer might be the Obama administration's multinational agreement with Iran to curb its
nuclear-weapons potential, but that was due no less to Russia's president and Ministry of
Foreign Affairs, which provided essential guarantees to the sides involved. Forgotten,
meanwhile, are the more than 50 career State Department officials who publicly protested
Obama's rare attempt to cooperate with Moscow in Syria. Call it by what it was: the sabotaging
of a president by his own State Department.
In this spirit, there are a flurry of leaked stories that Tillerson will soon resign or be
ousted. Meanwhile, however, he carries on. The ever-looming menace of Russia-gate compels him
to issue wildly exaggerated indictments of Russian behavior while, at the same time, calling
for a "productive new relationship" with Moscow, in which he clearly believes. (And which, if
left unencumbered, he might achieve.)
Evidently, Tillerson has established a "productive" working relationship with his Russian
counterpart, Sergey Lavrov, the two of them having just announced North Korea's readiness to
engage in negotiations with the United States and other governments involved in the current
crisis.
Tillerson's fate will tell us much about the number-one foreign-policy question confronting
America: cooperation or escalating conflict with the other nuclear superpower, a
détente-like diminishing of the new Cold War or the growing risks that it will become
hot war. Politics and policy should never be over-personalized; larger factors are always
involved. But in these unprecedented times, Tillerson may be the last man standing who
represents the possibility of some kind of détente. Apart, that is, from President Trump
himself, loathe him or not. Or to put the issue differently: Will Russia-gate continue to
gravely endanger American national security?
Stephen F.
Cohen is a professor emeritus of Russian studies and politics at New York University and
Princeton University and a contributing editor of The Nation , where a version of this
article first appeared.
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 1:49 pm
"Thanks to Flynn's indictment, we now know that the Israeli prime minister was able to
transform the Trump administration into his own personal vehicle for undermining Obama's lone
effort to hold Israel accountable at the UN. A clearer example of a foreign power colluding
with an American political operation against a sitting president has seldom, if ever, been
exposed in such glaring fashion.
"Kushner's deep ties to the Israeli right-wing and ethical breaches
"The day after Kushner was revealed as Flynn's taskmaster, a team of researchers from the
Democratic Super PAC American Bridge found that the presidential son-in-law had failed to
disclose his role as a co-director of his family's Charles and Seryl Kushner Foundation
during the years when his family's charity funded the Israeli enterprise of illegal
settlements. The embarrassing omission barely scratched the surface of Kushner's decades long
relationship with Israel's Likud-led government. [ ]
"A Clinton mega-donor defends Kushner's collusion
"So why isn't this angle of the Flynn indictment getting more attention? An easy
explanation could be deduced from the stunning spectacle that unfolded this December 2 at the
Brookings Institution, where the fresh-faced Kushner engaged in a 'keynote conversation' with
Israeli-American oligarch Haim Saban. [ ]
""The spectacle of a top Democratic Party money man defending one of the Trump
administration's most influential figures was clearly intended to establish a patina of
bipartisan normalcy around Kushner's collusion with the Netanyahu government. Saban's effort
to protect the presidential son-in-law was supplemented by an op-ed in the Jewish Daily
Forward headlined, 'Jared Kushner Was Right To 'Collude' With Russia -- Because He Did It For
Israel.'
"While the Israel lobby ran interference for Kushner, the favorite pundits of the liberal
anti-Trump "Resistance" minimized the role of Israel in the Flynn saga. MSNBC's Rachel
Maddow, who has devoted more content this year to Russia than to any other topic, appeared to
entirely avoid the issue of Kushner's collusion with Israel.
"There is simply too much at stake for too many to allow any disruption in the preset
narrative. From the journalist pack that followed the trail of Russiagate down a conspiracy
infested rabbit hole to the Clintonites seeking excuses for their mind-boggling campaign
failures to the Cold Warriors exploiting the panic over Russian meddling to drive an
unprecedented arms build-up, the narrative must go on, regardless of the facts."
Unfortunately, and I can't believe I'm going to concede this, but FOX News, regarding this
one particular issue: the baloney of Russiagate, is probably the most accurate mainstream
source out there right now. Despite everything else they get wrong, FOX News, pertaining to Russiagate, is generally
(generally) accurate from the bits and pieces I've seen.
One quick example -- a few months ago the otherwise execrable Hannity actually had on his
show the great Dennis Kucinich who railed against the deep state for attacking Trump b/c of
his overtures toward peace with Moscow and how the deep state was using Russiagate to do it,
etc. Kucinich was sensational. I doubt Maddow would ever have given him such a platform to
voice the truth like Hannity did on this particular occasion.
Patrick Lucius , December 15, 2017 at 2:27 pm
I may have to take a look at Fox again–I bet you are right. Hannity as an arbiter of
truth–oh my god
Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 3:35 pm
On this one particular issue, Hannity gets things right.
Rob , December 16, 2017 at 2:00 pm
If Hannity ever reports a story correctly, it's only because it coincides with his deeply
partisan interests. Being truthful is something about which he cares little, if at all.
Skip Scott , December 15, 2017 at 3:05 pm
Yeah Drew-
For years I railed against Fox, but nowadays they seem to be the relatively sensible ones.
Tucker Carlson is exceptionally bright, and I have no idea what got into Hannity. I used to
loathe him to no end. Him giving Dennis Kucinich a chance to speak his mind is something I
never would have imagined.
Drew Hunkins , December 15, 2017 at 3:36 pm
Isn't it something Mr. Scott?
Dave P. , December 15, 2017 at 11:34 pm
Drew and Skip Scott – Yes, I agree with you. I watched Dennis Kucinich too. Hannity
and Carlson have been doing some very good reporting on these issues. It is amazing how the
things have changed. Fox News was "No" for progressives to go to.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 4:25 pm
Prior to Trump's presidency I would never watch Fox News, but on this issue,, they are a
more accurate source of information then any other broadcasting media. Rachel Maddow does
nothing but rave, as if she had her own personal agenda, and maybe she does, ousting Trump,
and that a woman didn't win the White House. I too saw the interview with Kucinich, and
indeed it was a very good one.
RamboDave , December 15, 2017 at 5:27 pm
Tucker Carlson, on Fox (right before Hannity), has had Glenn Greenwald on several
times.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:08 am
That basically maps directly onto the fact that Russia is the one issue Trump is right
on.
Patrick Lucius , December 15, 2017 at 2:20 pm
Great article. Has America gone off the deep end? I just watched the first ten minutes of
an anti-Putin and anti-Russian Frontline on television two nights ago. I have never seen more
blatant or shameless propaganda. Because my mom watches tv all day and I am taking care of
her, I see the same slop, drivel, and gibberish parroted all day long on the major news
outlets. Perhaps I should state that more professionally: I see the same shameless propaganda
parroted daily by the mainstream news media And it occurs to me–these young news
commentators are not part of a conspiracy, willfully lying–they actually believe the
propaganda. We are in trouble. I think as a group we act much more like bees in a hive or
monkeys in a troop than we do as rational beings, and I mean no disrespect to bees or
monkeys.
exiled off mainstreet , December 15, 2017 at 2:56 pm
I agree. It seems sort of like the Nazi regime with more advanced technology and more
complete ability for the gestapo to exercise control or more aptly like the Soviet Union
where people actually believe the regime's propaganda.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 4:35 pm
Personally I believe that many do know that there is nothing to the Russia-gate story, but
go along to get along, and they are no different then politicians, who bow before the Israeli
Lobby, or NRA, or corporate groups to get reelected, and maintain their standing in their
party. Another way of putting it, is to say they are willing to prostitute themselves. I
can't see myself doing that.
occupy on , December 16, 2017 at 12:36 am
I, too, saw this scurrilous 'documentary' – "Putin's Revenge" – and made a
point of writing down the names of a good number of those commentators moving the narrative
along. All of them are well-known active Zionists or children of American Zionists who've
helped create and ardently protect the State of Israel. I wish I could remember now at least
some of the commentors' names. I didn't see Frontline' "Putin's Revenge" on PBS. It was on a
National Geographic channel that traditionally shows those anthropological 'documentaries'
about "Ancient Alien Visitors," "Gods from Outer Space, etc .pleasant programs to fall to
sleep by. 'Putin's Revenge', however, was grotesque in its downright lies – making me
furiously wide awake until I could google info on those names.
alley cat , December 15, 2017 at 2:36 pm
"Or to put the issue differently: Will Russia-gate continue to gravely endanger
American national security?"
The neocon perpetrators of the Russia-gate hoax will continue putting their own greed (for
money and power) ahead of American national security. That's who they are and what they do.
They conflate global domination with American national security because it benefits them to
do so. Sure, they don't want a hot war with Russia because they are neither psychotic nor
suicidal. But they are power-crazed: delusional to the extent they think they can
prevent the Russian-American hostility provoked by their own machinations from spinning out
of control.
exiled off mainstreet , December 15, 2017 at 2:54 pm
This is a great article by one of the most intelligent and knowledgeable commentators on
Russia remaining active despite the ongoing dangerous propaganda storm. Those responsible for
this storm are threatening our continued existence. Because of this depressing salient fact,
the democratic party, which has been fully on board with this, has totally sacrificed its
legitimacy and degenerated to a clear and present existential danger. Clear thinking people
have to view it as such and take necessary action based upon that fact, which is serious in
its implications, since it is difficult in the extreme to supplant an existing party in a two
party system (which has degenerated into a two faction one party state some time ago) in
light of the media propaganda, intelligence and police control exercised by this odious
system.
Bill , December 15, 2017 at 3:11 pm
Really glad, Mr, Cohen, to see your article in Consortium. Your voice is always a wise
one. Weekly listener.
Very important and accurate information, for the most part, in my view, though I have a
few caveats.
Unfortunately for our perception of the 'goodness' of those in power, I tend to think the
level of knowledge and intention of those who spread Russiagate are more cynical than you
imagine.
When we read certain articles from hardline think-tanks and serious political commentary
from those publications and outlets which sustain the current 'scandal' we see a surprising
awareness of Russia's true intentions and nature. Sober, and reasonable. The problem is that
this commentary is not what is used to persuade any element of the public toward a certain
view on Russia. You instead see it within the establishment essentially talking amongst
themselves.
The problem, as I see it, is that these people are fully aware of the truth, as well as
Russia's intentions. They are just quite simply spinning vast lies to the contrary whenever
they speak to, or in front of, the public. For two main reasons:
Hobbling Trump, for a number of reasons, not least of which amounts to his unwillingness
to pretend he cares about 'spreading Democracy' around the world. More immediate goal.
Trying to put a lid on a rapidly boiling over domestic discontent with the status quo.
Meaning corporate control over the government, pro-corporate, anti-democratic policy, and
endless senseless war.
The remainder of this piece refers to #2.
Russia is an 'enemy' now, more than anything else, because, for whatever it's
self-interested motivations, it is a loud, prominent, powerful voice actively and
methodically criticizing and opposing US imperial hypocrisy, double-standards, and
deception.
We are told they 'sow chaos'. Code for platforming anti-establishment truth-tellers.
We are told they cause us to 'lose trust in our system of government'. Code for them platforming people who help expose, like Bernie Sanders does, how 'our system of government'
has been taken from us by corporations, and making us want it back, for the people.
We are told that Russia is, in however many words, whatever we, ourselves are.
Imperialistic, disregarding of truth and reality, arrogant, entitled, expansionist etc. The
American people are waking up to what the Empire does, and why. The rather desperate idea is
to redirect that knowledge and stick it to Russia. Externalizing an internal threat.
Finally, we are told that Russia is criticizing and grand-standing against the West in
order to tamp down domestic discontent. Which, given the previous entry here, is showing to
be exactly what the US government is doing. To the letter.
Russia is a fake enemy, talked about in a fake way, by fake people in an increasingly fake
democracy. Respectfully, Mr. Cohen, I don't think ideology is the problem. I don't think
those at the helm of US foreign policy have had an ideology in a long, long time. I think
they have, with few exceptions, a 'prime directive': The retention and expansion of
Oligarchic corporate power.
Nowadays, fearmongering over immigrant crime, terrorists, non-state cyber-criminals, or
whatever else conjured to make the extremely safe-from-foreign-threats (To this day no war on
our soil since the Civil War. Itself a domestic threat) American people feel afraid, and thus
controllable and ignorant, is no longer working. Only a big fish like Russia can even hope to
do the job. Plus that big fish is one of the factors 'sowing chaos' by giving a voice to
anti-imperialists in the West to spread the truth of the government we actually live
under.
In short, Russiagate, and it's accompanying digital censorship efforts, are a desperate
attempt to rest control back over the American people and away from honest, rational
truth.
Even shorter, our rulers underestimated the power of the internet.
Kind regards,
Bill
Lois Gagnon , December 15, 2017 at 8:57 pm
Thank you. That is a really truthful post. It really is all about maintaining imperial
hegemony at all costs. Unfortunately, the cost could be the end of life on Earth. These
weasels controlling the machinery of state from the darkness must be exposed as the
treacherous criminals they are.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:22 am
Reason #3: A looming, aggressive enemy (so portrayed) is needed to sustain the U.S.'s
parasitic surveillance, "security", and "defense" ecosystems.
Thanks, Professor Cohen, and I happen to think that this phony Russia hacking fabrication
is breaking down, along with many other false narratives of the West. So many things are
exposing the lies and there are truly good investigators who are weighing in, so I am hopeful
that the neocons will be finally outed as hopelessly behind the times.
And Twitter is helping because western media sources will not tell the truth and people
are taking to it to push back. I agree that at this time Fox is more interested in the facts
than MSNBC, and particularly Tucker Carlson. (The sex scandals, now another witch hunt, are
showing what a fouled-up society America has become. It is feminist McCarthyism, sadly, and I
am glad Tavis Smiley is fighting back.)
Yesterday I had a conversation with a loud mouth believer of the "Putin did it" fable and
told him some details, that outright it was a fabrication, and someone nearby in the coffee
shop actually joined to support the pushback with other facts. So, I am hopeful that people
are waking up. And Nikki Haley has just been called by people on Twitter for her lies about
Iran provocation in Yemen. Plus documents on NATO expansion after Gorbachev was assured would
not happen, have just been revealed. I do think people are waking up.
Bill , December 15, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Jessica,
That's what it takes. The political battle of our times. Good on you. I think you're
right. The beginnings of which seem to have motivated Russiagate in the first place. I did a
longer post on this above. Please keep spreading sense. I'll do the same.
Best wishes,
Bill
RnM , December 15, 2017 at 9:25 pm
It's good to be optimistc, but let us not forget the long history (short by Old World
standards) of the oligarchy of doing anything and everything to get what they want.
The present cock-up of Russia-gate (Geez, I hate using that MSM concocted jingo term) points,
not to the oligarchs losing their groove, but to an incompetent but persistent bunch of
Clinton/Obama synchophants. Their days in any kind of power are, thankfully, numbered. But the
snakes are lurking in the bushes, as are the deeper parts of the deep state. It's the long
game that they are in for.
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:37 pm
Thanks, Jessica,
A hopeful comment! Here, too, I sense at least some more dissent among us citizens with the
prevailing lies.
When the bubble bursts, the boy has cried and everyone "realises" the emperor is naked, I
wonder, will our governments, politicians and media survive? Everyone, practically, is
complicit.
Thanks, Bill, and I think we're at a profound crossroads in world history. I saw an
interview on YouTube with young Americans who did not even know who won the Civil War nor why
it was fought! We all must speak out with conviction and without anger.
Realist , December 15, 2017 at 3:44 pm
My parents always used to use the old argument to keep my thinking on track and avoid
conforming to dangerous groupthink: "if everyone else decided to jump off the cliff, in the
river or out the 10th floor window, would you just follow the crowd?" Professor Cohen is one
of the rare little boys who either learned that lesson well or has always had strong innate
instincts to avoid following the crowd or jumping on self-destructive bandwagons. Most of the
readers of this site seem to have similar predilections and are among the very few Americans
not being led by the Pied Pipers of all-encompassing self-destructive Russophobia. (Is there
some common childhood experience or shared gene in our personal biographies that compel our
rigorous adherence to the principles we all uphold?) As other posters have noted here, those
few media personalities with a seeming immunity to the pathological groupthink now infecting
most of America are indeed a very curious lot, with little else in the way of ideological
conformity, but thank heavens for them for any restoration of mass sanity will surely have to
originate from within their ranks, examples and leadership. I, for one, am pulling for
Professor Cohen to be among those leading this country out of the wilderness of lock-step
madness.
Bob Van Noy , December 15, 2017 at 3:47 pm
We remember an era before 11/22/1963
Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 4:30 pm
Realist I'm glad you brought up the readers on consortiumnews, and their not falling for
this Russia-Gate nonsense. People posting comments here in support of 'no Russian
interference' have been accused of being Trump supporters, but that was never the case. No,
instead many here just saw through the fog of propaganda, and certainly saw this Russia-Gate
idiocy as it being nothing more than an instigated coup. This defense of Trump could have
been for any newly elected president, but the division between Hillary supporters, and Trump
backers, has been the biggest obstacle to overcome, while attempting to explain your thought.
I truly think that if the shoe had been on the other foot, that the many posters of comments
here on consortiumnews would have been on Hillary's side, if it had been the same kind of
coup that had been put in place. It's time to tell John Brennan, James Clapper, James Comey,
and Robert Mueller, to call Hillary and say, 'well at least we tried Madam Secretary', and
then be done with it.
Dave P. , December 16, 2017 at 2:43 pm
Realist and Joe – I always enjoy reading your thoughtful comments. Those of us who
have been reading professor Stephen Cohen's articles for more than four decades now , know
that he is the foremost authority on Russia. Instead of being courted to give his valuable
input into the relations with Russia, he and others like him are being vilified as Putin
apologists. It is the sign of the times we live in now.
As many comments posters here on this site had noted, the Russia-Gate has been
deliberately created to confront Russia at this time rather than later on. Russia is in the
way for final push for World domination – the Neoliberal Globalization.
Nobody, in Washington or elsewhere in the Country seems to ask why and for whom they, The
ruling Powers want to establish this World Empire at any cost – even at the risk of a
nuclear war. This process of building an Empire has changed the country as I had seen it more
than half a century ago.
NeoLiberal Globalization, building this World wide Empire during the last three or four
decades had its real winners and losers. Lot of wealth has been created all over the World
under neoliberal global economy.
The big time winners are top .01% and another about 10% are also in the winners category,
and have accumulated lot of wealth. From all over the World; China, India . . . this top 10%
class send their kids to the best universities in the West for professional education;
Finance, High tech, Sciences, and other professions and they get the jobs all over in Silicon
Valley, and big financial Institutions and other professional fields in U.S. , U.K.,
Australia Canada . . .
The losers are middle class in U.S. – whom Hillary called deplorables –
especially in those once mighty Industrial States in the Midwest, and East. With my marriage
here , I inherited lots of relatives more than forty five years ago, most of them in the
Midwest. As somebody commented a few weeks ago on this site about these middle class people
that their " Way of Life " has been destroyed. It is true. All these people voted for Trump.
With the exception of two, all our relatives in the Midwest and elsewhere on my wife's side
voted for Trump. They are good, hard working people. It is painful to look at those ruined
and abandoned factories in those States and ruined lives of many of those Middle Class
people. Globalization has been disastrous for the middle class people in U.S. It is a race to
the bottom for those people.
Ask those relatives if they have ever read anything about Russia during 2016. Not one of
them have ever read or listened to anything related to Russian media or other Russian source.
They did not even know if anything like RT or Sputnik News ever existed. Most of them don't
even know now. And it is true of the people we associate with here where we live. None of
them have time to read anything let alone Russian Media. I came to know about RT during
events in Ukraine in 2014, and about Sputnik News over a year ago when this Russia- Gate
commotion began. And I had read lot of Russian literature in my young age.
As several articles on this website have pointed out those email leaks were an inside job.
Russia-Gate is just a concocted scheme to bring down Trump. And to destabilize Russia –
a hurdle to Globalization and West's domination.
Skip Scott , December 17, 2017 at 8:39 am
Dave P-
Yours is a very accurate portrayal of the heartland of America. I live in a very rural
area of the southwest, and you describe reality there to a "T". They are much too busy trying
to survive to dig too deeply into world affairs. Thank goodness at least they've got Tucker
Carlson at Fox to contrast the propaganda spewers on the other networks. They know the latte
sippers and their government has abandoned them, but they don't fully understand the PNAC
empire's moves in pursuit of global domination, and many wind up in the military jousting at
windmills.
Realist , December 17, 2017 at 4:46 pm
I totally concur, Dave. I'm 70 and well remember, as a little kid, as a teenager and as a
young man, folks talking about a far-off ideal of world unity, wherein all people on earth
would share in earth's bounty and have the same democratic rights. The UN was supposed to be
one of the first steps in that general direction. However, nobody thought that the eventual
outcome would be what the movement has transmogrified into today: neoliberal globalism in
which a tiny fraction of the top 1% own and control everything, with the rest of us actually
suffering a drastic drop in our standard of living and a blatant diminution of our political
rights.
It's been fifty years since I lived in Chicago, and about 45 since I last lived in the
Midwest, but I was born and raised there and well recognise everything you have said about
the place and the people in your remark to be entirely correct. It's also true for most of
the other regions of this country in which I have lived, but the "Rust Belt" has paid the
price in spades to satiate the neoliberal globalist "free traders." (Remember when THAT
catchphrase was first sold to the working classes by Slick Willie's DLC wing of the
Democratic party? He and Al Gore basically ended up doubling the ranks of "Reagan Democrats"
whether they intended to do so or not. And, Hillary was so delusional as to assume those
people would be on her side!)
Dave P. , December 17, 2017 at 11:36 pm
Yes, Realist. That Slick Willie and Gore did the most damage to the working class than any
other administration in the recent American history. And being progressive democrats, we
worked hard for their election as volunteers registering voters. At that time Rolling Stone
Magazine called them as Saviors after Reagan and Bush era of greed – as they called it.
Clintons sold the Democratic Party to the Wall Street and to Neoliberal Globalization. Tony
Blair did the same in U.K. to the Labor Party.
Then we put faith in Hopey changey Obama and worked for his election. And he turned out to
be big fraud too. After his Libya intervention and then on to Syria, I finally got turned off
from Democratic Party politics. My wife, and I had started with McGovern Campaign in
1972.
Talking about Chicago, I landed at O'Haire fifty two years ago during snowy Winter, with
just a few hundred dollars in my pocket enough for one semester on my way to Graduate School.
You can not do it these days. America was at it's best. Ann Arbor was a Republican town those
days with very friendly people. Compared to Europe, and other cultures, I found Americans the
least prejudiced people, very open to other cultures. The factories In Michigan, Ohio,
Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana . . . were humming. Never on Earth, such a prosperous middle
class on such a scale has ever been created; made of good, hard working people in those small
and big towns. The workers were back bone of the Democratic Party. And every thing looked
optimistic. I, and couple of my friends thought it can not get better than this on Earth.
And all this seems like a past history now. Life is still good but that stability and that
optimism of 1960's is gone. I visited Wisconsin and Michigan last Spring and in Fall again
this year. It is painful to look at those gigantic factories shut down and in ruins. I lived
for a decade in Michigan. As I said in my comments above, the biggest loser in this
NeoLiberal Globalization is American Middle Class.
Piotr Berman , December 15, 2017 at 4:13 pm
Jessica K: The sex scandals, now another witch hunt, are showing what a fouled-up society
America has become.
One could say that there is nothing bad about a witch hunt, provided that it genuinely
goes after evil witches. Perhaps the worst hitch hunt in my memory was directed at preschool
teachers accused of sexual molestation and sometimes satanism. Probably we are not in this
Animal Kingdom story (yet):
Denizens of AK see a hare running very fast and they ask "what happen?" Mr. hare answers
"They are castrating camels!" "But you are a hare, not a camel!" "Try to prove that you are
not a camel!".
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 5:02 pm
"In a dramatic development in the trial in Kiev of several Berkut police officers accused
of shooting civilians in the Maidan demonstrations in February 2014, the defence has produced
two Georgians who confirm that the murders were committed by foreign snipers, at least 50 of
them, operating in teams. The two Georgians, Alexander Revazishvili and Koba Nergadze have
agreed to testify [ ]
"This dramatic and explosive evidence was first brought to light by the Italian journalist
Gian Micalessin on November 16 in an article in the Italian journal Il Giornale and is again
brought to the world's attention by a lawyer with some courage picking up on that report and
speaking with the witnesses himself. These witnesses stated to Gian Micalessin, even more
explosively, that the American Army was directly involved in the murders.
"The clear objective of the Maidan massacre in Kiev on February 20, 2014 was to sow chaos
and reap the fall of the democratically elected, pro-Russian Yanukovych government. People
were slaughtered for no other reason than to destroy a government the NATO powers, especially
the United States and Germany, wanted removed because of its opposition to NATO, the EU, and
their hegemonic drive to open Ukraine and Russia to American and German economic expansion.
In other words, it was about money and the making of money.
"The western media and leaders quickly blamed the Yanukovych government for the killings
during the Maidan demonstrations, but more evidence has become available indicating that the
massacre in Kiev of police and civilians – which led to the escalation of protests,
leading to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government – was the work of snipers working
on orders of government opponents and their NATO controllers using the protests as a cover
for a coup.
"One of the snipers already admitted to this in February 2015, thereby confirming what had
become common knowledge just a few days after the massacre in Kiev and in a secretly recorded
telephone call, the Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet reported to the EU head of Foreign
Policy, Catherine Ashton, in early March 2014, that there was widespread suspicion that
"someone from the new coalition" in the Kiev government may have ordered the sniper murders.
In February 2016, Maidan activist Ivan Bubenchik confessed that in the course of the
massacre, he had shot Ukrainian police officers. Bubenchik confirmed this in a film that
gained wide attention.
'Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, at the University of Ottawa, published a devastating paper on the
Maidan killings setting out in extensive detail the conclusive evidence that it was a false
flag operation and that members of the present Kiev regime, including Poroshenko himself were
involved in the murders, not the government forces. [ ]
"In the November 16 article in the Italian journal Il Giornale, and repeated on Italian TV
Canale 5, journalist Gian Micalessin revealed that 3 Georgians, all trained army snipers, and
with links to Mikheil Saakashvili and Georgian security forces were ordered to travel to Kiev
from Tbilisi during the Maidan events. It is two of these men that are now being called to
testify in Kiev."
The pretext for the western-supported overthrow of Ukrainian President Yanukovych was the
massacre of more than a hundred protestors in Kiev in February 2014, which Yanukovych
allegedly ordered his forces to carry out. Doubts have been expressed about the evidence for
this allegation, but they have been almost entirely ignored by the western media and
politicians.
Ukrainian-Canadian professor Ivan Katchanovski has carried out a detailed study of the
evidence of those events, including videos and radio intercepts made publicly available by
pro-Maidan sources, and eye witness accounts. His findings point to the involvement of
far-right militias in the massacre and a cover-up afterwards:
– The trajectories of many of the shots indicate that they were fired from buildings
that were then occupied by Maidan forces.
– Many warnings were given by announcers on the Maidan stage about snipers firing from
those buildings.
– Several leaders of the then opposition felt secure enough to give speeches on the
Maidan around the time that gunmen in nearby buildings were shooting protestors dead, and
those leaders were not targeted by the gunmen .
– Many of the protesters were shot with an outdated type of firearm that was not used
by professional snipers but was available in Ukraine as a hunting weapon.
– Recordings of all live TV and Internet broadcasts of the massacre by five different
TV channels were either removed from their websites immediately after the massacre or not
made publicly available.
– Official results of ballistic, weapons, and medical examinations and other evidence
collected during the investigations have not been made public, while crucial evidence,
including bullets and weapons, has disappeared.
– No evidence has been given that links the then security forces' weapons to the
killings of the protesters.
– No evidence has been given of orders to shoot unarmed protestors even though the new
government claimed that Yanukovych issued those orders personally.
– So far the only three people have been charged with the massacre, one of whom has
disappeared from house arrest.
Thank you Abe that article could change everything
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:54 pm
Abe,
Thanks for advocating Dr Katchanovski! I have been reading some of his papers since a year or
two and his work seems very thorough! He uses physical facts like trajectories of bullets to
determine where shots originated.
Another expert in the field who knows Mr Katchanovski fully endorsed his academic work
without any hesitation when I asked him recently. He is being published by publishers with
the highest demands. His work can be found in academia.com or is it .org, login is free of
charge.
His work deserves the attention of real journalists.
Martin - Swedish citizen , December 15, 2017 at 6:57 pm
Oh, sorry, I see u already mentioned academia.edu!
No harm repeating though.
And it is .edu. :)
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:51 pm
Ditto with the airliner shootdown.
Russia is accused and evidence is destroyed/suppressed.
The pattern is quite clear. Russiagate is merely an extension of the same pattern.
Remember those intelligence tests that consist of presenting a series of numbers, and the
test taker has to figure out what the next number in the pattern is . . .
So, the Russiagate thing is merely the next item that continues the pattern of Maidan, plane
shootdown and cover-up, shootdown of plane in Sinai, etc. etc. etc.
I think the deep state REALLY went apoplectic when Snowden escaped to Russia.
They will have their revenged, at any price, to the USA, to Russia, to the world. These
are madmen.
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:32 am
It's prove Abe that 'only if you live long enough' applies to learning these newly
uncovered facts regarding the Maiden Square riots. Let's hold out hope that the truth to MH17
comes out soon. Another thing, how can these sanctions against Russia stay in place while
everything known as a narrative to that event comes unraveled.
Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:31 pm
That's a good article , worth reading in its entirety. Thanks.
occupy on , December 16, 2017 at 1:23 am
Abe, thank you so much for this information. US fingerprints are all over Ukraine's
sickening economic 'reforms', too! Have you read the House Ukraine Freedom Support Act
– passed by both houses in the middle of the night Dec. 2014? I have. Wade through
until nearly the end where it gives President Obama #1. the power to work toward US
corporations exploring and developing Ukraine's natural resources (including fracking) once
'reforms' have been put in place (privatization); #2. the power to ask the World Bank to
extend special loans for US corporations to develop those natural resources; #3. the power to
install 'defensive' missile sites all along Russia's western borders; #4. the power to free
US NGO's in Russia from their previously non-partisan restraints and allow them to work with
anti-Putin political groups.
I urge you to google Dennis Kucinich/Ron Paul/Ukraine Freedom Support Act -2014. You won't
believe how that bill got through the House of Representatives and Senate. And you'll have to
laugh when you hear the word "democracy" in any context with "the USA".
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 6:48 pm
I also see the sexual allegations made against Trump, as another opportunity to oust him
from his presidency. I in no way condone such behavior, but it's disturbing to think the main
motivation driving this is another means of trying to oust him from his presidency. I don't
believe, as these women claim, that they felt "left out", in the recent outings of men who
have misused their positions of power to exploit women sexually.
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:58 pm
Yep, the Weinstein thing is being trumpeted and amplified to the extent that it synergizes
wtih attempts to oust Trump. It is handy to the deep state. Trump qua political figure is
being tarred with the Weinstein brush. That is the main reason we are seeing such a heavy
dose of stories on male bad behavior. We would not be seeing this if Hillary were in power.
Just a few stories but not full-court press. Because too many of these bad actors are
actually in the Hillary camp. Like, most of Hollywood. The story wouldn't help her,
politically, if she were in power. It only helps politically to drag down Trump. Before the
Weinstein thing came along, we arleady had teh golden showers fairy tale. In fact it would
not surprise me at all if Rose McGowan had some kind of political support and encouragement
to "go public."
this is no way means that I think this kind of thing is OK. But, things are not
straightforward in our world. It is a political as well as a "moral" or lifestyle story. One
of the political targets is Trump. Notice that the heads of studios who knew all about this
behavior and did nothing are not being forced to step down. Let's check out their political
donations . . .
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:44 am
What if the 'Sexual Predator Purge' stories along with the 'Get Trump Out of Office'
campaign were but two stories colliding into each other? I mean a reporter in our TMZ world
we live in would need paid a handsome sum to continually stay quiet over a Harvey Weinstein
kind of scoop, so eventually these scandals had to come out. And then there's hateable loud
mouth the Donald, who must be stopped by any means. Put the two together, and hey with how
all these big shot perv's are going down, why not corral Trump and force him to resign. It's
even cheaper than impeachment.
So the conniving once again craft together a piece of fiction, mixed in with some reality,
and take the American conscience off into another realm of fantasy. Hate can get anybody
carted off to the guillotine, if the timings right.
Joe Tedesky , December 16, 2017 at 12:55 am
Andrew Bacevich mentions the Weinstein scandal, and then goes on to suggest what the
conversation should be.
Bacevich is fine as far as he goes
But he never quite "turns the corner" himself in taking the story as far as it needs to be
taken and laying out the conclusions that the public needs to grasp.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:32 am
Yes! That! Thank you, Litchfield.
Bacevich is knowledgeable and worth reading. But he never, afaik, ventures to look deeply
enough into the imperial heart of darkness – "turn the corner", as you say.
Leslie F. , December 15, 2017 at 7:11 pm
So the investigation isn't really about Russia. It is about corruption, money laundering,
tax evasion, etc. All worthy of investigation. Not to mention the conspiracy to kidnap the
Turkish cleric and collusion with Israel This investigation should not be shut down because
the deep state and the press are in a conspiracy to blame it all on Russia. It is up to you
guys in the press to convince your colleagues to call it what it really is, and expose those
members who continue to misrepresent reality. The press, as a whole, has dropped the ball in
a big way on this, but that is not Mueller's responsibility. The 4th estate is a mess and you
should be trying to figure out how to clean it up without violating the constitution.
Annie , December 15, 2017 at 7:58 pm
This is one of the reasons I no longer support Democracy Now. As Mr. Cohen said, " worse,
this mainstream malpractice has spread to some alternative-media publications once prized for
their journalistic standards, "
God, help us, everyone including mental health professionals have no sense of
professionalism, but they sure know how to make a buck, and try to undo a presidency.
"There are Thousands of Us": Mental Health Professionals Warn of Trump's Increasing
Instability
I read your post, and of course I agree. Some of the allegations are so minor, as he
hugged me and gave me a kiss on my mouth. He touched my breast. I was in the dressing room
when he came in unannounced, and my hair was in curlers, and I was only wearing a robe, but I
was nude underneath. Of course some were more disconcerting then those I mentioned, but all
claim to be traumatized. I have no doubt their agenda is to bring him down and the whole
thing has been orchestrated to do just that. Where is all the concern, and coverage of rape
in this country where the estimates go from 300,000 to over a million women raped each year?
Where are the stories about sexual trafficking of children, or the children who are sexually
abused in their own homes? I've never seen coverage on these issues like what is happening
now. That is another reason I find this whole thing appalling. Not to mention using sexual
harassment as a political tool to bring down a president.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:41 am
So many examples of this. There's an alternative newspaper comic I used to like, "Tom the
Dancing Bug" – smart, subversive, and "progressive". But the writer has completely
bought into Scary Putin/Puppet Trump. It's depressing.
"unprecedented, preposterous, and dangerous" sums it up nicely. It was also good to have
Professor Cohen's endorsement of this website's courageous initiatives in combatting the
Russia-gate farce.
Bob Van Noy , December 16, 2017 at 11:15 am
I'll happily second that thought BobH. And thanks
Litchfield , December 15, 2017 at 9:29 pm
Thank god Consortium News keeps up the pressure on the Russia-gate scam.
And glad to see Stephen Cohen published here.
Readers of this site need to keep reminding themselve of the basic background on this -- at
least, I do -- in case opportunities comes along to deflate others' credulousness.
One question for Stephen Cohen:
Your wife is the editor of The Nation.
What has The Nation done to stop the madness?
Not enough. What's the story?
In fact, during the campaign and post-election, The Nation shamefully lent itself to the
craziness on the left that sought to devalidate not only the results of the election but
Trump himself qua human being. Nothing has been too far below the belt for Nation editors and
writers to strike. I have had the ongoing impression that The Nation's editorial board really
cannot see below the surface on any of this and have driven a very superficial anti-Trump,
"resist" narrative dangerous in its implications. I think I have seen just one story, by a
Patrick someone, that seriously questioned the russia-gate narrative. The Nation has fallen
right in to the trap of "I hate Trump so much and am so freaked out by his election that I
will make common cause with any one and any forces in our polity that will get rid of him
somehow." The nation seems too scared of facing head on the reality of deep state actors in
the USA. Or is too wedded to its version of reality to see what has become incraseingly clear
to growing numbers of Americans.
As many an intelligent and more knowledgeable than I person has said: There is plenty to
decry about Trump. But worse is the actions taken in the name of ridding the country of him
and his presidency.
Because of this consistent cluelessness I have canceled all gift subscriptions to The Nation.
I'll pay for my own sub, to see where this magazine goes, but others will have to pay their
own way with The Nation if they so choose.
So, please clean up at home and get the act together on what is left of the left.
First.
Thought the acronym PEPs was clever, Progressives Except for Palestine. Now it has morphed
into PEPIRs pronounced Peppers, Progressives Except for Palestine, Iran and Russia. Actually
could be PEPIRS adding Syria. If we added Iraq it could be PIEPIRS or Peepers. Actually, I
have little regard for such people whose aims include killing and maiming for land and
money.
Professor Cohen's credentials are very impressive and his voice and pen are badly needed.
People like him are precious resources for America and the world.
PIEPIRS is incorrect with the I before the E making Pipers. So we have PEPs, Peppers and
Pipers. Please excuse the frivolous comments but it feels good to try to expose their
hypocrisy in any way you can, that is of the Peps, Peppers and Pipers.
Gregory Herr , December 15, 2017 at 9:43 pm
What has really been astonishing to me -- beyond a lack of evidence for all the
"Russia-gate" allegations–is the utterly preposterous nature of the narrative in the
first place. Robert Parry has addressed this, but the voice of Stephen Cohen–with the
perspective of specialized scholarship and experience vis-a-vis Russia–is a welcome
voice indeed.
David G , December 16, 2017 at 9:55 am
The NY Times printed an allegedly explanatory graphic a couple of days ago showing the
Trump/Russia "scandal" as a basically a proliferating root system descending from the central
"collusion" premise, with the roots and rootlets branching down to encompass all the
disjointed facts (and "facts") and allegations that have appeared in the media.
The graphic was unintentionally revealing of the phoniness of the whole business: instead
of showing numerous observations leading to a deeper truth, it accurately depicted
"Russia-gate" as a pre-existing (fact-free) conceit that has chaotically complexified to
accommodate random developments. That's the definition of a weak and useless theory!
Gregory Herr , December 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm
It seems to that as a representative of the incoming Administration's foreign policy team
Flynn was just doing his job speaking with the Russian ambassador about the sudden and
striking maneuvers of Obama during the transition. And in trying to defuse potential fallout
and escalation due to those sanctions he was doing his job well. Was it not perfectly legal
and well within the parameters of his duties to establish some baselines of discussion with
counterparts?
Flynn's expression of thoughts on policy to counterparts were, to my mind, subject to the
approval of the head of the incoming Administration -- namely Trump, and Trump only.
By the time the FBI questioned Flynn, he surely must have had an idea his conversation
with the Ambassador had been under surveillance. What was the "lie"? Was he forgetful of a
detail and just caught in a nitpicking technicality? Or did he deliberately manufacture a
falsehood? When he gets past his legal entanglement, I sure hope he sits down to a candid
interview. I'd like him to demystify me about all this.
I like your phraseology David this nonsense has been chaotically complexified to
accommodate random developments!
David G , December 16, 2017 at 6:46 pm
Thanks, Gregory Herr. In your earlier comment that I replied to, you reference "the
utterly preposterous nature of the narrative". That's not bad phraseology either.
And it also gets to something I've been thinking all along: I'd like to hear a
"Russia-gate" proponent, such as an MSNBC host, actually supply what they consider a
plausible narrative that fits all these breathless Trump/Russia "scoops".
I'm not demanding they prove anything, but just want to hear a story that makes sense.
Because it seems to me that all the little developments they rush toward with their
hummingbird attention spans don't fit together, *even if you concede all the dubious and
debatable "facts"*.
dhinds , December 16, 2017 at 7:28 am
An important interview, for anyone that wants to understand Russia, today.
Damn good Interview (on the part of Putin – He said what was needed to be said.
including "well, this is just more nonsense Have you lost your mind over there, or
something)? He then continued to wrap it up, in a reasonable and and diplomatic manner.
Effectively, the USA continues locked into denial, refusing to accept responsibility for
it's own current state of affairs. (The mass delusion is so thick you could eat it with a
spoon, if it wasn't so putrid).
Warmongering, terrorist and refugee creating Regime Change and mass assassinations (with
neither congressional oversight nor due process), arms and influence peddling profiteering,
the creation of a mass surveillance society and militarized police state that kills
minorities, the homeless and poor with impunity, mass incarceration in private for profit
prisons, increasingly gross inequality and the excessive cost of health care and education;
show the USA to be a society adrift and devoid of fundamental values. (And that's me talking,
not Vladimir Putin)
The Clintons, Bush's and their supporters are to blame and should be held accountable, but
mainly a new course for society must be charted and neither of the two corrupt major
political parties is capable of that at this time.
A new coalition is called for.
James , December 16, 2017 at 10:13 am
Thank you Mr. Cohen for your ever insightful and reasoned commentary on this disturbing
trend.
Clif , December 16, 2017 at 5:04 pm
Yes, thank you Dr. Cohen.
The lack of scrutiny is alarming. I'd like to offer Victoria Nuland and Robert Kagan as
possible figures who are working the lines and should be drawn into the light.
rosemerry , December 16, 2017 at 5:53 pm
Professor Cohen is one of the few who really knows about Russia, so of course so any of
the Fawning Corporate Media (to quote Ray McGovern) denigrate his work. Even in GWBush's time
he often explained "the Cold War is over", and Obama's intemperate rush to expel diplomats
and push ahead the Russophobia after Trump's election had no basis in fact and just
encouraged the Hillary-Dems and neocons to continue the unjustified destruction of the one
aspect of Trump's "plan" that would have benefited the USA and peace.
Bill , December 17, 2017 at 12:03 pm
Do you really think that Obama was misled by others? I don't believe it. Obama and Hillary
are the origin of the fabrications. Will anyone hold their feet to the fire?
"It's the state-sponsorship of terrorism, stupid." The largest-scale, ongoing, organized
war criminal operation in the history of the world has murdered millions.
Vox has an article "The Left Shouldn't Make Peace With Neocons -- Even to Defeat Trump",
by Robert Wright. Bill Kristol of American Conservative and many other neocons including
Robert Kagan have dual US-Israel citizenship, and they push the MICC toward war. They'll be
pushing for war with Iran and maybe Russia.
Tim , December 18, 2017 at 10:13 am
Sadly, quite a concise, clear picture of the muddy waters called Russia-gate, Intel's
baby, and the faint possibilities of Tillerson and Lavrov holding fast against sabotage.
Let's hope against all hope.
"In a dramatic development in the trial in Kiev of several Berkut police officers accused of shooting civilians in the Maidan
demonstrations in February 2014, the defence has produced two Georgians who confirm that the murders were committed by foreign
snipers, at least 50 of them, operating in teams. The two Georgians, Alexander Revazishvili and Koba Nergadze have agreed to testify
[ ]
"This dramatic and explosive evidence was first brought to light by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin on November 16 in
an article in the Italian journal Il Giornale and is again brought to the world's attention by a lawyer with some courage picking
up on that report and speaking with the witnesses himself. These witnesses stated to Gian Micalessin, even more explosively, that
the American Army was directly involved in the murders.
"The clear objective of the Maidan massacre in Kiev on February 20, 2014 was to sow chaos and reap the fall of the democratically
elected, pro-Russian Yanukovych government. People were slaughtered for no other reason than to destroy a government the NATO
powers, especially the United States and Germany, wanted removed because of its opposition to NATO, the EU, and their hegemonic
drive to open Ukraine and Russia to American and German economic expansion. In other words, it was about money and the making
of money.
"The western media and leaders quickly blamed the Yanukovych government for the killings during the Maidan demonstrations,
but more evidence has become available indicating that the massacre in Kiev of police and civilians – which led to the escalation
of protests, leading to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government – was the work of snipers working on orders of government opponents
and their NATO controllers using the protests as a cover for a coup.
"One of the snipers already admitted to this in February 2015, thereby confirming what had become common knowledge just a few
days after the massacre in Kiev and in a secretly recorded telephone call, the Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas Paet reported to
the EU head of Foreign Policy, Catherine Ashton, in early March 2014, that there was widespread suspicion that "someone from the
new coalition" in the Kiev government may have ordered the sniper murders. In February 2016, Maidan activist Ivan Bubenchik confessed
that in the course of the massacre, he had shot Ukrainian police officers. Bubenchik confirmed this in a film that gained wide
attention.
'Dr. Ivan Katchanovski, at the University of Ottawa, published a devastating paper on the Maidan killings setting out in extensive
detail the conclusive evidence that it was a false flag operation and that members of the present Kiev regime, including Poroshenko
himself were involved in the murders, not the government forces. [ ]
"In the November 16 article in the Italian journal Il Giornale, and repeated on Italian TV Canale 5, journalist Gian Micalessin
revealed that 3 Georgians, all trained army snipers, and with links to Mikheil Saakashvili and Georgian security forces were ordered
to travel to Kiev from Tbilisi during the Maidan events. It is two of these men that are now being called to testify in Kiev."
LOL Oh, yes- same here. My late father loved Peter Sellers and to my mother's annoyance
would sometimes do Strangelove impersonations w jerking arm. His WWII convoy officer veteran
half German (and fully German fluent) father also thought the film was funny as hell and few
German Americans hated the Nazis as much as my grandfather did.
I saw the film for the very first time as a US Marine PFC stationed in Okinawa Autumn 1981
during of all things, a big typhoon which kept us confined to some scattered barracks up at
then remote- and beautiful- Camp Schwab. Two bored captains touring my deserted barracks I
stood duty in noticed in one cubicle a Beta video player and copy of the film and- kid you
not- when I confessed I had never seen the film, ordered me to watch it with them and I was
hooked. The two officers laughed hysterically like naughty little school boys on the bunk
they sat on as I pulled up a wooden footlocker. Utterly brilliant and imo has aged well- a
masterpiece.
'I do not avoid women, Mandrake, but I do deny them my essence.' - Sellers' creepy chuckle
in response to Sterling Hayden's deranged rant alone still has me howling.
I grew up during the "hottest" part of the Cold War with my family living literally next
to a Nike nuclear SAM site(w armed sentries and scary dogs inside the barbed wire) in San
Pedro, CA. - we never lost any sleep over it even tho my '50s conscript Army vet dad quipped
we were a high priority target in any war w the Soviets.
"... Along the way, he was one of only two senior people openly advocated for a pre-emptive attack on N. Korea. Even Bush thought that was too much, and even Cheney did not support it, but Carter pushed it. ..."
"... One can wonder how a neocon, wife of a leading neocon, came to be in charge in Ukraine, to declaim "f-the-EU" and boast of spending billions to promote this second color revolution, giving cookies to open Nazis along the way. ..."
I heard earlier today on the radio Carter is Obama's nom- I laughed as I called it here last week- Obama's Deep State masters'
top pick as a very smooth below radar Trojan Horse neo con who will fly through confirmation and has doubtless has big plans.
The GOP and the MIC will love him, new wars will be cooked up for Americans to die in and I'm sure he has less than democratic
views on Americans who will protest their govt for this. The Soviets' crushing of the 1968 Prague Spring makes for a nice blueprint
on how to silence dissent if the anti Occupy tactics don't work and a dialed down version of martial law could be here to stay.
Ashton Carter was one of the most extreme of the neocon hawks in the upper levels of the Bush Admin.
His specific assignment was to ensure there could never be a "peer competitor" by throwing money at the bleeding cutting edge
of weapons technology.
Along the way, he was one of only two senior people openly advocated for a pre-emptive attack on N. Korea. Even Bush thought
that was too much, and even Cheney did not support it, but Carter pushed it.
One can wonder how a neocon, wife of a leading neocon, came to be in charge in Ukraine, to declaim "f-the-EU" and boast of
spending billions to promote this second color revolution, giving cookies to open Nazis along the way.
However, now with Carter we see that the neocons have captured the policy part of the Obama Admin -- it wasn't an accident,
it was design that we did that, and now will go back into Iraq, attack Syria, and attack Iran.
What could go wrong with someone advocating bombing North Korea? Just the type of person the job requires. The only criteria for
the job was: must love war. So, while we are bombing Iraq, Syria, Yemen, occasionally Pakistan, we can figure out how much we
will pay contractors for armament to take care of Iran and North Korea as well. He will certainly fit into Obama's cabinet as
another yes man. Just like so many who have no military experience outside of watching war movies and video games, he is exactly
what Obama wants. Someone who agrees how easy it is to start wars. He probably won't face much opposition since Obama has become
an official member of the neocons now running the country. Anyone who would caution that the unending wars are taking the country
down the road that destroyed the Soviet Union need not apply. The US doesn't feel that domestic issues are a priority, why put
money into fixing the failing infrastructure when you can buy more drones. He'll do fine as long as he takes his orders from Nuland,
Psaki and Harf.
Another sociopath willing to do the biding of the sociopaths who run the USA.
The rich profit immensely from the department of war, as this article intimates. Every dead Muslim child means profits for
rich Americans.
I wonder if Mr. Carter will last as long as the late Sec. of Defense McNamara who served from early '61 to early 1968 when Pres.
Johnson moved him to the head of the UN World Bank. A former secretary was William Cohen, a Republican, who served under Clinton.
Leon Panetta and Robert Gates did well, but both wrote critical books about Obama after leaving. A complex job, dealing with the
White House and the four star hawks in the Pentagon. Oh, a few doves too.
It's pretty interesting fact: "Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID."
While you can't exclude that Russia favored Trump over Clinton and might be provided some token of support, you can't compare
Russia and Israel as for influence on the US domestic and foreign policy. And GB also have a say and connections (GB supported
Hillary and MI6 probably used dirty methods). KSA provided money to Hillary. Still there is multiple investigations of Russia
influence and none for those two players. That makes the current Russiagate current witch hunt is really scary.
The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria
Notable quotes:
"... The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from 9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our political elites and the country at large. ..."
"... Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our enemies in the Kremlin. ..."
"... There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the side of the angels include TruthDig.com and Antiwar.com . ..."
"... Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017. ..."
"... The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria." ..."
"... "America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach agreement." ..."
"... "The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers, composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher." ..."
"... How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay will concur. ..."
"... Even today more than half of the US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID. ..."
"... And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives, concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism. ..."
"... It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations, and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. ..."
"... As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the world into nuclear war. ..."
"... JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. ..."
"... As shown in this article, the American media has a long track record of misreporting key news items: ..."
"... The current cycle of fake news about Russia is definitely not a new phenomenon in the United States. ..."
"... Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no exercises.... ..."
"... It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country. They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in an African jungle ..."
"... All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly being displayed. ..."
"... They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it. ..."
"... "American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking". ..."
"... Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it". ..."
"... This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced. Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all - not the slightest scrap. ..."
"... But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof. ..."
"... It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience". ..."
"... Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA". ..."
"... I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's the world we appear to have: selective cooperation. ..."
"... After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in the White House ..."
"... Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again, looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that. ..."
"... Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever. ..."
"... Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians. ..."
"... "German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency." ..."
"The two (Trump and Clinton) cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to one
another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by their
respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room."
"Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: Disgrace!"
- Vladimir Zhirinovsky - prominent Russian politician, leader of a major party in
parliament.
The American public is now experiencing mass paranoia that is called Russia-gate. Obnoxious
and dangerous as this officially encouraged madness may be, it is, alas, nothing new. As from
9/11, the same kind of group hypnosis was administered from the Nation's Capital on the body
politic to serve the then agenda of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney, turning back civil
liberties that had accrued over generations without so much as a whimper from Congress, our
political elites and the country at large.
This time the generalized paranoia started under the nominally left of center administration
of Barack Obama in the closing months of his presidency. It has been fanned ever since by the
centrists in both Democratic and Republican parties who want to either remove from office or
politically cripple Donald Trump and his administration, that is to say, to overturn the
results at the ballot box on November 8, 2016.
Foreign policy issues are instrumentalized for domestic political objectives. In 2001 it was
the threat of Islamist terrorists in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Muslim world attacking
the American homeland. Today it is the alleged manipulation of our open political system by our
enemies in the Kremlin.
Americans are wont to forget that there is a world outside the borders of the USA and that
others follow closely what is said and written in our media, especially by our political
leadership and policy elites. They forget or do not care how the accusations and threats we
direct at other countries in our domestic political squabbling, and still more the sanctions we
impose on our ever changing list of authoritarians and other real or imagined enemies abroad
might be interpreted there and what preparations or actions might be taken by those same
enemies in self-defense, threatening not merely American interests but America's physical
survival.
In no case is this more relevant than with respect to Russia, which, I remind readers, is
the only country on earth capable of turning the entire Continental United States into ashes
within a day. In point of fact, if Russia has prepared itself for war, as the latest issue of
Newsweek magazine tells us, we have no one but our political leadership to blame for
that state of affairs. They are tone deaf to what is said in Russia. We have no concern for
Russian national interests and "red lines" as the Russians themselves define them. Our Senators
and Congressmen listen only to what our home grown pundits and academics think the Russian
interests should be if they are to fit in a world run by us. That is why the Senate can vote
98-2 in favor of making the sanctions against Russia laid down by executive order of Barack
Obama into sanctions under federal legislation as happened this past summer.
There is in the United States a significant minority of journalists and experts who have
been setting out the facts on why the Russia-gate story is deeply flawed if not a fabrication
from the get-go. In this small but authoritative and responsible field, Consortium
News stands out for its courage and dogged fact-checking and logic-checks. Others on the
side of the angels include TruthDig.com and
Antiwar.com .
The Russia-gate story has permutated over time as one or another element of the
investigation into Donald Trump's alleged collusion with the Kremlin has become more or less
promising. But the core issue has always been the allegation of Russian hacking of DNC
computers on July 5, 2016 and the hand-over of thousands of compromising documents to Wikileaks
for the purpose of discrediting putative Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and throwing the
election to Donald Trump, who had at that time nearly clinched the Republican nomination.
Perhaps the most significant challenge to the official US intelligence story of Russian
hacking released on January 6, 2017 was the forensic evidence assembled by a group of former
intelligence officers with relevant technical expertise known as VIPS (Veteran Intelligence
Professionals for Sanity). Their work, arguing that the attack on the DNC computers was an
inside job by someone with access to the hardware rather than a remote operation by persons
outside the Democratic Party hierarchy and possibly outside the United States, was published in
Consortium News ("Intel Vets Challenge 'Russia Hack' Evidence") on July 24, 2017.
The VIPS material was largely ignored by mainstream media, as might be expected. An
editorial entitled "The unchecked threat from Russia" published by The Washington Post
yesterday is a prime example of how our media bosses continue to whip up public fury against
collusion between the Trump campaign and the Kremlin even when, by their own admission, "no
conclusive proof has surfaced."
The VIPS piece last July was based on the laws of physics, demonstrating that speed
limitations on transfer of data over the internet at the time when the crime is alleged to have
taken place rendered impossible the CIA, NSA and FBI scenario of Russian hacking In what
follows, I will introduce a very different type of evidence challenging the official US
intelligence story of Russian hacking and meddling in general, what I would call
circumstantial evidence that goes to the core issue of what the Kremlin really wanted.
Let us consider whether Mr. Putin had a motive to put his thumb on the scales in the American
presidential election.
In the U.S., that is a slam-dunk question. But that comes from our talking to ourselves in
the mirror. My evidence comes precisely from the other side of the issue: what the Kremlin
elites were saying about the US elections and their preferred candidate to win while the
campaign was still going on. I present it on a privileged basis because it is what I gathered
on my several visits to Moscow and talks with a variety of insiders close to Vladimir Putin
from September through the start of November, 2016. Moreover, there is no tampering with this
evidence on my part, because the key elements were published at the time I gathered them, well
before the US election. They appeared as incidental observations in lengthy essays dealing with
a number of subjects and would not have attracted the attention they merit today.
* * * *
Political talk shows are a very popular component of Russian television programming on all
channels, both state-run and commercial channels. They are mostly carried on prime time in the
evening but also are showing in mid-afternoon, where they have displaced soap operas and
cooking lessons as entertainment for housewives and pensioners. They are broadcast live either
to the Moscow time zone or to the Far East time zone. Given the fact that Russia extends over 9
time zones, they are also video recorded and reshown locally at prime time. In the case of the
highest quality and most watched programs produced by Vesti 24 for the Rossiya One channel,
they also are posted in their entirety and in the original Russian on youtube, and they are
accessible worldwide by anyone with a computer or tablet phone using a downloadable free
app.
I underline the importance of accessibility of these programs globally via live streaming or
podcasts on simple handheld gadgets. Russian speaking professionals in the States had every
opportunity to observe much of what I report below, except, of course, for my private
conversations with producers and panelists. But the gist of the mood in Moscow with respect to
the US elections was accessible to anyone with an interest. As you know, no one reported on it
at the time. American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking
since that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be
thinking.
The panelists appearing on these different channels come from a rather small pool of Russian
legislators, including chairmen of the relevant committees of the Duma (lower house) and
Federation Council (upper house), leading journalists, think tank professors, retired military
brass. The politicians are drawn from among the most visible and colorful personalities in the
Duma parties, but also extend to Liberal parties such as Yabloko, which failed to cross the
threshold of 5% in legislative elections and received no seats in parliament.
Then there are very often a number of foreigners among panelists. In the past and at the
present, they are typically known for anti-Kremlin positions and so give the predominantly
patriotic Russian panelists an opportunity to cross swords, send off sparks and keep the
audience awake. These hostile foreigners coming from Ukraine or Poland are Russian speakers
from their childhood. The Americans or Israelis who appear are generally former Soviet citizens
who emigrated, whether before or after the fall of Communism, and speak native Russian.
"Freshness" is an especially valued commodity in this case, because there is a considerable
overlap in the names and faces appearing on these talks whatever the channel. For this there is
an objective reason: nearly all the Russian and even foreign guests live in Moscow and are
available to be invited or disinvited on short notice given that these talk programs can change
their programming if there is breaking news about which their audiences will want to hear
commentary. In my own case, I was flown in especially by the various channels who paid airfare
and hotel accommodation in Moscow as necessary on the condition that I appear only on their
shows during my stay in the city. That is to say, my expenses were covered but there was no
honorarium. I make this explicit to rebut in advance any notion that I/we outside panelists
were in any way "paid by the Kremlin" or restricted in our freedom of speech on air.
During the period under review, I appeared on both state channels, Rossiya-1 and Pervy
Kanal, as well as on the major commercial television channel, NTV. The dates and venues of my
participation in these talk shows are as follows:
September 11 – Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, Rossiya 1
September 26 - Sixty Minutes with Yevgeni Popov and Olga Skabeyeva, Rossiya 1
November 8-9 Time Will Tell.
For purposes of this essay, the pertinent appearances were on September 11 and 26. To this I
add the Sixty Minutes show of October 20 which I watched on television but which aired content
that I believe is important to this discussion.
My debut on the number one talk show in Russia, Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, on
September 11 was invaluable not so much for what was said on air but for the exchange I had
with the program's host, Vladimir Soloviev, in a five minute tête-à-tête in
the guests' lounge before the program went on air.
Soloviev obviously had not yet read his guest list, did not know who I am and stood ready to
respond to me when I walked up to him and unceremoniously put to him the question that
interested me the most: whom did he want to see win the US presidential election. He did not
hesitate, told me in no uncertain terms that he did not want to see Trump win because the man
is volatile, unpredictable and weak. Soloviev added that he and others do not expect anything
good in relations with the United States in general whoever won. He rejected the notion that
Trump's turning the Neocons out of government would be a great thing in and of itself.
As I now understand, Soloviev's resistance to the idea that Trump could be a good thing was
not just an example of Russians' prioritizing stability, the principle "better the devil you
know," meaning Hillary. During a recent chat with a Russian ambassador, someone also close to
power, I heard the conviction that the United States is like a big steamship which has its own
inertia and cannot be turned around, that presidents come and go but American foreign policy
remains the same. This view may be called cynical or realistic, depending on your taste, but it
is reflective of the thinking that comes out from many of the panelists in the talk shows as
you will find below in my quotations from the to-and-fro on air. It may also explain Soloviev's
negativism.
To appreciate what weight the opinions of Vladimir Soloviev carry, you have to consider just
who he is. That his talk show is the most professional from among numerous rival shows, that it
attracts the most important politicians and expert guests is only part of the story. What is
more to the point is that he is as close to Vladimir Putin as journalists can get.
In April, 2015 Vladimir Soloviev conducted a two hour interview with Putin that was aired on
Rossiya 1 under the title "The President." In early January 2016, the television documentary
"World Order," co-written and directed by Soloviev, set out in forceful terms Vladimir Putin's
views on American and Western attempts to stamp out Russian sovereignty that first were spoken
at the Munich Security Conference in February 2007 and have evolved and become ever more frank
since.
Soloviev has a Ph.D. in economics from the Institute of World Economics and International
Relations of the USSR Academy of Sciences. He was an active entrepreneur in the 1990s and spent
some time back then in the USA, where his activities included teaching economics at the
University of Alabama. He is fluent in English and has been an unofficial emissary of the
Kremlin to the USA at various times.
For all of these reasons, I believe it is safe to say that Vladimir Soloviev represents the
thinking of Russian elites close to their president, if not the views of Putin himself.
On September 27 , I took part in the Sixty Minutes talk show that was presented as a post
mortem of the first Trump-Clinton debate the day before. I direct attention to this show
because it demonstrates the sophistication and discernment of commentary about the United
States and its electoral process. All of this runs against the "slam-dunk" scenario based on a
cartoon-like representation of Russia and its decision makers.
The show's hosts tried hard to convey the essence of American political culture to their
audience and they did some effective research to this end. Whereas French and other Western
media devoted coverage on the day after the debates to the appearance of the American
presidential candidates and especially to Hillary (what else attracts comment from the male
world of journalism if not a lady's hair styling and sartorial choices), 'Sixty Minutes'
tweaked this aspect of the debates to find politically relevant commentary.
To make their point, presenter Yevgeny Popov came on stage in a blue suit and blue tie very
similar in coloring to Trump's, while his wife and co-presenter Olga Skabeyeva was wearing a
garment in the same red hue as Hillary. They proceeded to note that these color choices of the
candidates represented an inversion of the traditional colors of the Democratic and Republican
parties in American political tradition. And they took this a step further by declaring it to
be in line with the inversion of policies in the electoral platforms of the candidates. Hillary
had taken over the hawkish foreign policy positions of the Republicans and their
Neoconservative wing. Donald had taken over the dovish foreign policy positions normally
associated with Democrats. Moreover, Donald also had gone up against the free trade policies
that were an engrained part of Republican ideology up until now and were often rejected by
Democrats with their traditional financial backers from among labor unions. All of these
observations were essentially correct and astute as far as the campaigns went. It is curious to
hear them coming from precisely Russian journalists, when they were largely missed by West
European and American commentators.
As mentioned above, foreigners are often important to the Russian talk shows to add pepper
and salt. In this case, we were largely decorative. The lion's share of the program was shared
between the Russian politicians and journalists on the panel who very ably demonstrated in
their own persona that Russian elites were split down the middle on whether Donald Trump or
Hillary Clinton was their preferred next occupant of the Oval Office
The reasons given were not what you heard within the USA: that Trump is vulgar, that Trump
is a bigot and misogynist. Instead the Russian Trump-skeptics were saying that he is impulsive
and cannot be trusted to act with prudence if there is some mishap, some accidental event
occurring between US and Russian forces in the field, for example. They gave expression to the
cynical view that the positions occupied by Trump in the pre-election period are purely
tactical, to differentiate himself from all competitors first in his own party during the
primaries and now from Hillary. Thus, Trump could turn out to be no friend of Russia on the day
after the elections.
A direct answer to these changes came from the pro-Trump members of the panel. It was best
enunciated by the senior politician in the room, Vyacheslav Nikonov. Nikonov is a Duma member
from Putin's United Russia party, the chair of the Education Committee in the 6th Duma. He is
also chair of a government sponsored organization of Russian civil society, Russian World,
which looks after the interests of Russians and Russian culture in the diaspora abroad.
Nikonov pointed to Trump's courage and determination which scarcely suggest merely tactical
considerations driving his campaign. Said Nikonov, Trump had gone up against the entire US
political establishment, against the whole of corporate mainstream media and was winning.
Nikonov pointed to the surge in Trump poll statistics in the couple of weeks preceding the
debate. And he ticked off the 4 swing states which Trump needed to win and where his fortunes
were rising fast. Clearly his presentation was carefully prepared, not something casual and
off-the-cuff.
During the exchange of doubters and backers of Trump among the Russians, one doubter spoke
of Trump as a "non-systemic" politician. This may be loosely interpreted a meaning he is
anti-establishment. But in the Russian context it had an odious connotation, being applied to
Alexei Navalny and certain members of the American- and EU-backed Parnas political movement,
and suggesting seditious intent.
In this connection, Nikonov put an entirely different spin on who Trump is and what he
represents as an anti-establishment figure. But then again, maybe such partiality runs in the
family. Nikonov is the grandson of Molotov, one of the leading figures who staged the Russian
Revolution and governed the young Soviet state.
Who won the first Trump-Clinton debate? Here the producers of Sixty Minutes gave the final
verdict to a Vesti news analyst from a remote location whose image was projected on a
wall-sized screen. We were told that the debate was a draw: Trump had to demonstrate that he is
presidential, which he did. Clinton had to demonstrate she had the stamina to resist the
onslaught of 90 minutes with Trump and she also succeeded.
The October 20 program Evening with Vladimir Soloviev, which I watched on television from
abroad, was devoted to the third Clinton-Trump debate. My single most important conclusion from
the show was that, notwithstanding the very diverse panel, there was a bemused unanimity among
them regarding the US presidential electoral campaign: that it was deplorable. They found both
candidates to be disgraceful due to their flagrant weaknesses of character and/or records in
office, but they were also disturbed by the whole political culture. Particular attention was
devoted to the very one-sided position of the American mass media and the centrist
establishments of both parties in favor of one candidate, Hillary Clinton. When Russians and
former Russians use the terms "McCarthyism" and "managed democracy" to describe the American
political process as they did on the show, they know acutely well whereof they speak.
Though flamboyant in his language the nationalist politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of
the LDPR Party, touched on a number of core concerns that bear repeating extensively, if not in
full:
"The debates were weak. The two cannot greet one another on stage, cannot say goodbye to
one another at the end. They barely can get out the texts that have been prepared for them by
their respective staffs. Repeating on stage what one may have said in the locker room.
Billions of people around the world conclude with one word: disgrace! This is the worst
electoral campaign ever. And mostly what we see is the style of the campaign. However much
people criticize the USSR – the old fogies who ran it, one and the same, supposedly the
conscience of the world.
Now we see the same thing in the USA: the exceptional country – the country that has
bases everywhere, soldiers everywhere, is bombing everywhere in some city or other. They are
making their 'experiments.' The next experiment is to have a woman in the White House. It
will end badly.
Hillary has some kind of dependency. A passion for power – and that is dangerous for
the person who will have her finger on the nuclear button. If she wins, on November 9th the
world will be at the brink of a big war "
Zhirinovsky made no secret of his partiality for Trump, calling him "clean" and "a good man"
whereas Hillary has "blood on her hands" for the deaths of hundreds of thousands due to her
policies as Secretary of State. But then again, Zhirinovsky has made his political career over
more than 30 years precisely by making outrageous statements that run up against what the
Russian political establishment says aloud. Before Trump came along, Zhirinovsky had been the
loudest voice in Russian politics in favor of Turkey and its president Erdogan, a position
which he came to regret when the Turks shot down a Russian jet at the Syrian border, causing a
great rupture in bilateral relations.
The final word on Russia's electoral preferences during the October 20 show was given by the
moderator, Vladimir Soloviev: "There can be no illusions. Both Trump and Clinton have a very
bad attitude to Russia. What Trump said about us and Syria was no compliment at all. The main
theme of American political life right now is McCarthyism and anti-Russian hysteria."
This being Russia, one might assume that the deeply negative views of the ongoing
presidential election reflected a general hostility to the USA on the part of the presenter and
panelists. But nothing of the sort came out from their discussion. To be sure, there was the
odd outburst from Zhirinovsky, who repeated a catchy line that he has delivered at other talk
shows: essentially that the USA is eating Russia and the world's lunch given that it consumes
the best 40% of what the world produces while it itself accounts for just 20% of world GDP. But
otherwise the panelists, including Zhirinovsky, displayed informed respect and even admiration
for what the United States has achieved and represents.
The following snippets of their conversation convey this very well and do not require
attribution to one or another participant:
"America has the strongest economy, which is why people want to go there and there is a
lot for us to borrow from it. We have to learn from them, and not be shy about it."
"Yes, they created the conditions for business. In the morning you file your application.
After lunch you can open your business."
"America is a very complex country. It does not pay to demonize it. We have to understand
precisely what we like and do not like. On this planet there is no way to avoid them. Whoever
becomes president of the USA, the nuclear parity forces us to negotiate and reach
agreement."
"The US has opened its doors to the most intelligent people of the world, made it
attractive for them. Of course, this builds their exceptionalism. All directors, engineers,
composers head there. Our problem is that we got rid of our tsar, our commissars but people
are still hired hands. The top people go to the States because the pay is higher."
How are we to understand the discrepancy between the very low marks the panelists gave the
US presidential race and their favorable marks for the US as an economic and military
powerhouse. It appears to result from their understanding that there is a disconnect between
Washington, the presidency and what makes the economy turn over. The panelists concluded that
the USA has a political leadership at the national level that is unworthy and inappropriate to
its position in the world. On this point, I expect that many American readers of this essay
will concur.
* * * *
Ever since his candidacy took off in the spring of 2016, both Liberal Interventionists and
Neoconservatives have been warning that a Donald Trump presidency would mean abandonment of US
global leadership. They equated Donald's "America First" with isolationism. After all, it was
in the openly "isolationist period" of American political history just before the outbreak of
WWII that the original America First slogan first appeared.
However, isolationism never left us, even as the United States became engaged in and
eventually dominated the world after the end of the Cold War. Even today more than half of the
US Senators do not possess passports, meaning they have never been abroad, barring possible
trips to Canada using their driver's licenses as ID.
And for those Americans who do travel abroad, the world outside US borders is all too often
just an object of prestige tourism, a divertissement, where the lives of local people, their
concerns and their interests do not exist on the same high plateau as American lives,
concerns and interests. It is not that we are all Ugly Americans, but we are too well insulated
from the travails of others and too puffed up with our own exceptionalism.
It is not surprising that in the US foreign policy is not a self-standing intellectual
pursuit on a chessboard of its own but is strictly a subset of domestic policy calculations,
and in particular of partisan electoral considerations. Indeed, that is very often the case in
other countries, as well. The distinction is that the US footprint in the world is vastly
greater than that of other countries and policy decisions taken in Washington, especially in
the past 20 years of militarized foreign-policy making, spell war or peace, order or chaos in
the territories under consideration.
As regards the Russian Federation, the ongoing hysteria over Russia-gate in particular, and
over the perceived threat Russia poses to US national interests in general, risks tilting the
world into nuclear war.
It is a luxury we manifestly cannot afford to indulge ourselves.
But we all have to agree that the USA is the more infantile of all The Nations, and since
the end of the last war they have made no effort to grow up. They have created RussiaGate
where no other nation would dream up such Trivia.
JFK murder was about replacing the president elected by the people. Russia-gate has the same goal. When the
American president is enemy, you are not American
Can someone tell the big fat cowards exercising around North Korea to please shut the hell
up? Cowards make a lot of noise. When Libya was invaded there were no exercises, when Iraq
was invaded there were no exercises...... when Vietnam was invaded there were no
exercises....
It is obvious to the world that the fat cowards cannot attack a nuclear armed country.
They are too yellow bellied to do anything but beat their chest like some stupid gorilla in
an African jungle.
Please cut out the announcements of exercises after exercises, it is clogging the
airwaves. We are all tired of your stupid exercises... if you want to attack go ahead and get
your fat asses whipped like a slave running away from its masters.
Shameless cowards are now becoming highly annoying... it can be called Propaganda
terrorism. Cut that nonsense out. You cannot beat North Korea, you know it, the rest of the
world knows it. You cannot fight China or Russia, the rest of the world knows it ... so
please shut up once and for all.
You are terrorizing the airwaves with your exercise after exercise after exercise.
Practice control of the ships that are becoming a maritime hazzard to commercial ships. That
is what you need to practice.
Nobody is impressed with your over-bloated expensive war equipment which fail under war
conditions. Cut out the exercises before we start turning off our ears for your
propaganda.
YELLOW BELIED COWARDS!!!!! Go poison an innocent person or kill a child....it may make you
feel better... Big fat cowards.!
I am also very tired of the bluster . They flap their gums and taunt. Enough already . You
have made fools of yourselves in the eyes of the world .
All the while the real diplomacy is going on between South Korea and China with North Korea
paying close attention, I am sure. The Russian / Chinese proposal of a rail system from South
Korea through North Korea and into China connecting to the connection grid of all of Asia is
a far greater prospect for the peace initiative than the saber rattling presently outwardly
being displayed.
They keep raising the ante, and the North Koreans keep calling their bluff. They are made
to look ridiculous as they don't have a winnable hand and the North Koreans know it.
"American media simply were not interested in knowing what Russians were thinking since
that might get in the way of their construction of what Russians should be thinking".
Reminds me of the classic American boss's remark: "Any time I want your opinion, I'll tell you it".
The whole thing is orchestrated by the Zionist state within a state which controls not only America but most of the West -
and own the entire mainstream media. They cannot forgive Trump for wanting to make peace with Russia. Their hatred of
Christian Russia is visceral and unhinged.
'...by their own admission, "no conclusive proof has surfaced."'
This is actually quite a neat and elegant example of the kind of deceptive language
routinely used by politicians and the media. It is, of course, entirely true that no conclusive proof has surfaced. Indeed, that must
follow from the equally true and indisputable fact that no proof of any kind has surfaced.
Actually, nothing even vaguely resembling proof has surfaced. There is no evidence at all -
not the slightest scrap.
But by slipping in that little adjective "conclusive" the journalist manages to convey
quite a strong impression that there is proof - only not quite conclusive proof.
It is just as dishonest and cynical as Ronald Reagan's 1984 campaign remark, "I am not
going to exploit for political purposes my opponent's youth and inexperience".
Russiangate is concocted BS, to keep the ignorant American sheep , from understanding
Israel picked the "president of the USA".
That American children are murdering innocent children in foreign lands, for the benefit of,
not Israel, it is just a figment of the imagination, as the USSR was, and the USA is, but the
owners of Israel, City of London, Usury bankers.
Pedophile scum!
- understanding Israel picked the "president of the USA".
The fraud is in every election district. Israel cannot afford the bussing of Liberals.
This is too large for some poor nation like Israel. You are making up "Israel", just like
Gordon Duff. It tells me you are the same as Gordon Duff.
What an excellent article. If only people who have a very small knowledge of Russia/USA
relations would bother to read this and reflect upon it, a lot of misconceptions could be
cleared up if goodwill is part of the picture.
I think at times the CIA is actually assisting the Russian security services with terror
operations. I realize it doesn't make sense with Langley assisting ISIS in Syria, but that's
the world we appear to have: selective cooperation.
I don't know if the FSB has the levels of electronics signals intelligence the US has, I
do know the US and Russia may have cooperated in raids resulting in deaths of two Caucaus
Emirates leaders in 2014-2015. I believe that group has since disbanded and members probably
blended into other terror groups.
The thing that is absolutely ridiculous is that the American media and Deep State are what
is causing this trouble. I don't know why they want to have a World War so badly, but the
only thing keeping our two countries from destruction is Vladimir Putin's hard work and good
nature, and Trump's defiance of his "staff."
These Deep State actors in the US have
hidey-holes they can run to in case of the unthinkable, but they couldn't care less about the
people of the US -- let alone Russia. Their day is coming, and they'll be praying for their
mountains to fall on them when it does.
Anyone in the US that's paying any attention at all
knows the real story on this, and none of those who do are blaming anyone in Russia. If the
day ever comes that the US Deep State takes to their bunkers, they better be prepared to stay
in there--Balrogs or no Balrogs--because those of us who manage to survive above will be
looking for their sorry azzes when they come out!!!
Just to take your comment a little further ;- get to know every plumber and builder in
your area as I am, get on a friendly basis and ask about these "Deep State actors in the US
have hidey-holes" over a pint or two.
Then I am starting a crowdfunding fund to bring in "hundreds of thousands" to pay them to
screw up their sewage facilities in their hidey-holes SO THEY CAN down in their own BS.
After Uranium One, it would make sense to assume Russia would have preferred Hitlery in
the White House - Uranium One gives Russia something they know all the details of and
something they know the US public won't take lightly, so they could easily have blackmailed Hitlery with leaking those details.
Of course they also know Hitlery is a massive warmongering Nazi terrorist, but then again,
looks like Trump doesn't differ very much from her on that.
No need for paranoia, it is a veritable American love fest at the Kremlin, RIA, etc., ever
since the CIA informed Moscow that they had "information" on an imminent attack in
Russia.
Funny how the CIA has better intel on terrorism in Russia than the Russians do, even
stranger than the RF leadership doesn't seem to question the situation what so ever.
Got to hand it to the Americans, a couple of months ago Putin joked about RF "cells" in
the USA and now the CIA hands the RF a real cell all ready to go murder some Russians.
Some people talk a good game while some people actually take action.
For those of you that have some video viewing time available , you will probably enjoy the
lecture at the National Press Club , not nearly well attended I might add for this quality
venue, of Gilbert Doctoro.
New legatum prosperity index is up: Europeans enjoy the greatest quality of life
worldwide, Russians fall into more impoverishment and low quality of life. Its no secret that, for the past 150 years, Russian's wealth, quality of life and life
expectancy is unacceptably low for European standards).
Norway, Finland,
Switzerland, Sweden, Netherlands and Denmark occupying the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th and 8th
places respectively.
- low for European standards ... ) .... Norway, Finland, Switzerland,
Sweden Netherlands and Denmark
When you do copyworks, include your source. RI is not for illiterate globalist bots who
cannot read an answer. The quality of trolls is now too low. The globalists are now hiring
junk?
"German media reported on Saturday that BND covertly provided a number of journalists with
information containing criticism of Russia before the data were disclosed by the agency."
"... Reza Marashi is director of research at the National Iranian American Council. He came to NIAC after serving in the Office of Iranian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and The Atlantic, among other publications. He has been a guest contributor to CNN, NPR, the BBC, TIME Magazine, The Washington Post, and the Financial Times, among other broadcast outlets. Follow Reza on Twitter: @rezamarashi ..."
"... At least since 1980, millions of bombs have been dropped on the people of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Gaza, Libya, all 'Made in USA' or 'Made in England': directly sold by Americans and the British and mostly dropped by the American/British pilots, but none has ever been displayed with such a vigor and moral concern and called for the international community to come forward to confront or condemn the manufacturer or the perpetrators who had used them against the civilians. ..."
"... What 'international' law/obligation is this that grants the US the monopoly and full rights to continue to arm criminal regimes in the Middle East and to shamelessly support them, but the same 'international obligation' requires Iran to refrain from any military or even moral support for the victims and demands that Iran must remain an observer of the US-Saudi-UAE mass murder in Yemen?! For how many more years and decades the people in the Middle East are supposed to accept such a contemptible hypocrisy and double standards! ..."
"... You diplomatically brought in the key motivation behind the show – political ambitions. She knows she needs 'name recognition' and seems determined to get it, no matter how. ..."
"... Ever since you left DOS, US' core policy on Iran has not been changed. As a matter of fact ever since the revolution, US Iran policy has not changed an iota, Nicki Healy, Samantha Powers, and Collin Powell and many others that came and gone are all the same, firmly anti- Iran and Iran in as long as Iran and Iranians maintains their nationalistic independence policy. ..."
Nikki Haley is not good at foreign policy. With few discernible achievements to speak of after one year as America's envoy to
the UN, her most noteworthy moments have been two incoherent diatribes on Iran. The
first -- an airing of grievances passed off as justification for killing the Iran nuclear deal -- came and went with little fanfare.
Yesterday, she doubled down with a speech trying to make the case
that Iran is, among other things, supplying Houthis in Yemen with ballistic missiles and "fanning the flames of conflict in the region."
There are a variety of problems with Haley's assertions. Three in particular stand out.
First, Haley cited a UN report in her claim regarding Iranian missile transfers to the Houthis. Of course, the UN has reached
no such conclusion. Instead, a panel of experts
concluded that fired missile fragments show components from an Iranian company, but they have "no evidence as to the identity
of the broker or supplier." Asked about Haley's claim that Iran is the culprit, Sweden's ambassador to the UN
said, "The info I have is less clear." Analysts from the U.S. Department of Defense speaking to reporters at Haley's speech openly
acknowledged that they do not know the missiles'
origin. Perhaps most surreal is the very same UN report cited by Haley also
says the missile included a component that was manufactured by an American company. Did she disingenuously omit that inconvenient
bit from her remarks, or fail to read the entire UN report? The world may never know.
If Iran is arming the Houthis, it is a terrible policy that Iranian officials should reverse. All countries should stop arming
the various factions in Yemen. Tehran is no exception. But neither is Washington. It was therefore appalling to see that Haley's
speech reference Yemen and not include a single word about America's ongoing military, intelligence, and logistical support for the
Saudi-led humanitarian catastrophe taking place. If she wanted to focus on facts regarding Iran and Yemen, she should have explained
to reporters that, in addition to bolstering Iran's influence in country where it was previously negligible, the Saudi-led debacle
has also empowered al-Qaeda -- the same al-Qaeda that attacked the United States on 9/11 with 15 Saudi nationals, and continues to
plot attacks on America today.
There is also a stunning lack of foreign policy sophistication in Haley's prevailing assumption regarding Iran and missiles. Not
only do we recklessly arm despots in the world's most volatile region with missile of their own, we also provide the Iranian government
with a pretext to further develop its missile program -- and cite American and European military sales to an increasingly aggressive
Saudi Arabia and UAE as justification for doing so. "Do as I say, not as I do" is a slogan, not a strategy. And if it remains the
status quo, so too will the growth of Iran's missile program.
The most inexplicable part of Haley's charade is her insistence on talking about Iran rather than talking to Iran. The only thing
stopping her from sitting down one on one with her Iranian counterpart at the UN to respectfully discuss these matters is her own
shortsighted ideological rigidity. Frankly, the track record is clear. Talking about Iran produced more missiles under the Bush administration.
Talking to Iran eventually produced compromises on missiles under the Obama administration. Haley should spend less time using the
UN ambassadorship to boost her domestic political ambitions, and more time actually conducting diplomacy on behalf of the United
States.
If Haley is truly concerned about Iran's missile program and regional activities, she can take three immediate steps to demonstrate
her seriousness: First, immediately halt all American military, intelligence, and logistical support for the Saudi-led humanitarian
catastrophe in Yemen. If the war ends, concerns about Iran in Yemen recede. Second, freeze all missile sales to Middle Eastern countries.
If Saudi Arabia and the UAE aren't armed to the teeth with missiles they don't know how to use, Iran's threat perception and missile
development reduces accordingly. Third, immediately offer bilateral and multilateral dialogue with the Iranian government on all
issues of contention -- with no preconditions. The JCPOA is proof that sustained diplomacy with Iran can produce favorable outcomes
for American interests.
Haley's dearth of foreign policy experience is no excuse for her shambolic performance yesterday. Rather than displaying the dignity
and poise of America's face to the United Nations, she had her Colin Powell 2003 moment, demonstrating that too many of our leaders
have still not learned the lessons of the Iraq war disaster. At best, this is willful ignorance on Haley's part. At worst (and more
likely), she cherry-picked intelligence
in a fashion eerily reminiscent of the 2002-2003 push for invading Iraq. It's not too late for Haley to salvage her tenure at the
UN, but it will require listening more to the professional staff of career government officials she inherited rather than the motley
crew of Republican operatives she brought with her to New York.
Reza Marashi is director of research at the National Iranian American Council. He came to NIAC after serving in the Office
of Iranian Affairs at the U.S. Department of State. His articles have appeared in The New York Times, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy,
and The Atlantic, among other publications. He has been a guest contributor to CNN, NPR, the BBC, TIME Magazine, The Washington Post,
and the Financial Times, among other broadcast outlets. Follow Reza on Twitter:
@rezamarashi
At least since 1980, millions of bombs have been dropped on the people of Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, Gaza, Libya,
all 'Made in USA' or 'Made in England': directly sold by Americans and the British and mostly dropped by the American/British
pilots, but none has ever been displayed with such a vigor and moral concern and called for the international community to come
forward to confront or condemn the manufacturer or the perpetrators who had used them against the civilians.
But why this time? Because this time the butcher of the world has found his buddy on the receiving end!
"If Iran is arming the Houthis, it is a terrible policy that Iranian officials should reverse. All countries should stop
arming the various factions in Yemen".
Mr Marashi, you speak from the safety of your office/country: Where the American armed and trained Saudi and Emirati forces
and pilots viciously attack defenseless civilians in Yemen that has so far left more than 10,000 killed and 8 million near starvation,
it is our moral obligation to support the oppressed Yemenis, not to leave them at the mercy of the Saudi savage air attacks –
the Yemenis should not be denied support just as we Iranians were denied arms by the civilized world while we had come under Saddam's
savage military attack in the 1980s.
What 'international' law/obligation is this that grants the US the monopoly and full rights to continue to arm criminal
regimes in the Middle East and to shamelessly support them, but the same 'international obligation' requires Iran to refrain from
any military or even moral support for the victims and demands that Iran must remain an observer of the US-Saudi-UAE mass murder
in Yemen?! For how many more years and decades the people in the Middle East are supposed to accept such a contemptible hypocrisy
and double standards!?
Not good at it; even worse for it. But following in the hallowed tradition of Bush the Son's representative, Colin Powell.
Let's hope that even the British have figured out what's going on this time, and will not behave like Lapdog Blair.
Given no excuse at all for waging war, the US will invent one. Past time it was called on this, by the the other 192 nations
in the UN
"If Iran is arming the Houthis, it is a terrible policy that IRan should reverse."
WHY is it terrible? Someone should and MUST help the Houthis / Yemen PATRIOTS! No one else is helping them, NOT the U.N .and
certainly, what use are they, if they don't prevail on the Saud.Arab. to stop the war.
Not even the Russians are helping the Yemenis.
It isn't even a war, because a war means two sides fighting, but in the case of Yemen, it's a matter of the Yemenis defending
themselves. And it's the innocent civilians, women and children, as well as the civilian men, suffering and dying.
So the matter at hand is the Arab invasion, NOT where the missile came from.
The whole thing is a U.S. distraction from the Saudi invasion. And Haley frothing at the mouth, does a good job of distraction.
You diplomatically brought in the key motivation behind the show – political ambitions. She knows she
needs 'name recognition' and seems determined to get it, no matter how.
She was mentioned to replace Tillerson as Sec of State, probably at her instigation. She knows T loves her style so she can
do as she pleases, like flying with fanfare to see IAEA DG Amano in Vienna – where there is still no Ambassador. But you can bet
her ambition is to be the first US woman President, to show the Clinton clan how that is done.
Unfortunately but necessarily, it will be important to 'put her in her place' in as many media fora as possible. Reza, you
made a good contribution!
Ever since you left DOS, US' core policy on Iran has not been changed. As a matter of fact ever since the revolution, US
Iran policy has not changed an iota, Nicki Healy, Samantha Powers, and Collin Powell and many others that came and gone are all
the same, firmly anti- Iran and Iran in as long as Iran and Iranians maintains their nationalistic independence policy.
As Mr. Zarif has said, we all have seen this show before and are not impressed with it. Noticeably, what has really been changed
is yours and NIAC' analysis and opinions on US policies, especially ever since the failure of US' green color revolution back
in 09.
However, IMO, you and NIAC, owe an explanation on what made you change your opinion of US intentions for Iran, after you left
the DOS, if you seek support of expatriate Iranians for your efforts.
I'd nominate this as the understatement of the year for 2017. But someone's got to point out the obvious and Reza Marashi nailed
it.
Pity I can't link to a couple of articles on Haley's past incarnations as Governor of South Carolina or accountant to her parents'
clothing boutique business so that readers can see Haley's talent for being truly abysmal at whatever she turns her hand to.
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to
The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers
and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.
The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before
moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail
Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to
assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.
Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt
gripping the nation , believes that this
falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping
at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed
intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop
any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia.
Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute
a "grave American national security threat."
"... And even IF Gorbachev would have had it in writing, it would not have made a bit of difference. ..."
"... There is, actually, no excuse for Gorbachev's giving away the store without an iron-clad treaty, ratified in both the USSR and the USA. ..."
"... The US has threatened the USSR/Russia since 1918 when the UK, USA and their allies including Australia invaded from 7 different directions in a 3 year campaign. ..."
"... That combined with US subversion and no doubt bribes and false promises leads to only one conclusion. Russia has good reason to be afraid of America. ..."
"... Maybe capitalism is the foundation of the problem, but the framework is militarism, weapons production and sales, attacking people around the world, spying on everyone, and imprisoning the underclass to keep them from attacking the wealthy. Take away those structural elements and the US will collapse. ..."
"... Are we not aware that the US foreign policy is by and for the economic benefit of Wall Street? Lies are the norm to hide WS involvement. National security is a scam to hide lies. ..."
"... Handing the territories of the USSR over to the US on a handshake, that is what Gorbachev will be known for. It was no mistake. ..."
"... The present demonization of Putin has been mainly continuation of business as usual. But Putin has stood up to the interests behind the IMF, the FED, the BIS, etc., making him a hero to the entire educated world. Maybe one day soon America will join the educated world. One can only hope. ..."
"... How could any nation trust the USA who has broken every treaty they have agreed to! England all through history has coveted Russia for their vast natural resources. England has always been a wicked nation. ..."
At a time when
the United States is convulsed by anti-Russian hysteria and demonization of Vladimir Putin, a
trove of recently declassified Cold War documents reveals the astounding extent of the lies,
duplicity and double-dealing engaged in by the western powers with the collapsing Soviet Union
in 1990. I was covering Moscow in those days and met some of the key players in this sordid
drama. Ever since, I've been writing that the Soviet leader, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Foreign
Minister, Eduard Shevardnadze, were shamelessly lied to and deceived by the United States,
Britain, and their appendage, NATO.
All the western powers promised Gorbachev and Shevardnadze
that NATO would not expand eastward by 'one inch' if Moscow would pull the Red Army out of East
Germany and allow it to peacefully reunify with West Germany. This was a titanic concession by
Gorbachev: it led to a failed coup against him in 1991 by Communist hardliners.
The documents
released by George Washington University in Washington DC, which I attended for a semester,
make sickening reading (see them online). All western powers and statesmen assured the Russians
that NATO would not take advantage of the Soviet retreat and that a new era of amity and
cooperation would dawn in post-Cold War Europe. US Secretary of State Jim Baker offered
'ironclad guarantees' there would be no NATO expansion. Lies, all lies. Gorbachev was a
humanist, a very decent, intelligent man who believed he could end the Cold War and nuclear
arms race. He ordered the Red Army back from Eastern Europe.
I was in Wunsdorf, East Germany,
HQ of the Group of Soviet Forces, Germany, and at Stasi secret police HQ in East Berlin right
after the pullout order was given. The Soviets withdrew their 338,000 troops and 4,200 tanks
and sent them home at lightening speed. Western promises made to Soviet leaders by President
George W. H. Bush and Jim Baker quickly proved to be empty. They were honorable men but their
successors were not. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush quickly began moving NATO into
Eastern Europe, violating all the pledges made to Moscow. The Poles, Hungarians and Czechs were
brought into NATO, then Romania and Bulgaria, the Baltic States, Albania, and Montenegro.
Washington tried to get the former Soviet Republics of Georgia and Ukraine into NATO. The
Moscow-aligned government of Ukraine was overthrown in a US-engineered coup. The road to Moscow
was open.
All the bankrupt, confused Russians could do was denounce these eastward
moves by the US and NATO. The best response NATO and Washington could come up with was, 'well,
there was no official written promise.' This is worthy of a street peddler selling counterfeit
watches. The leaders of the US, Britain, France, Belgium and Italy all lied. Germany was caught
between its honor and imminent reunification. So even its Chancellor Helmut Kohl had to go
along with the West's prevarications.
At the time, I wrote that the best solution would be for
the demilitarization of formerly Soviet-controlled Eastern Europe. NATO had no need or business
to expand eastward. Doing so would be a constant provocation to Russia, which regarded Eastern
Europe as an essential defensive glacis against invasions from the West. Now, with NATO forces
on its western borders, Russia's deepest fears have been realized. Today, US military aircraft
based on the coasts of Romania and Bulgaria, former Warsaw Pact members, probe Russian airspace
over the Black Sea and the vital strategic port of Sevastopol. Washington talks about arming
chaotic Ukraine. US and NATO troops are in the Baltic, on Russia's northwestern borders. Polish
right-wingers are beating the war drums against Russia. In 1990, KGB and CIA agreed to the
principal of 'not one inch' eastward for NATO.
Former US ambassador to Moscow, Jack Matlock,
confirms the same agreement. Gorbachev, who is denounced as a foolish idealist by many
Russians, trusted the Western powers. He should have had a battalion of New York City garment
district shyster lawyers to document his agreements in 1990. He thought he was dealing with
honest, honorable men, like himself. Is it any wonder after this bait and switch diplomacy that
Russia has no trust in the Western powers? Moscow watches US-run NATO oozing ever eastwards.
Today, Russia's leaders firmly believe Washington's ultimate plan is to tear apart Russia and
reduce it to an impotent, pauper nation.
Two former Western leaders, Napoleon and Hitler, had
similar plans. Instead of carrying on about Hitler's duplicity after Munich, we should look at
our own shameless behavior after 1990. Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally
syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the International
Herald Tribune the Los Angeles Times, Times of London, the Gulf Times, the Khaleej Times,
Nation – Pakistan, Hurriyet, – Turkey, Sun Times Malaysia and other news sites in
Asia. https://ericmargolis.com
There are enough articles at this website in any one week or month for one to realize we do
not live in a free country being led by people who intend to keep their oath of office.
... ... ...
Socrates pointed out that only honorable men can ever find
true happiness. But that insight only points out what necessary for happiness to occur, but
not what is sufficient. Freedom is also necessary, for in the absence of freedom people are
prevented from living honorably.
Honor requires the courage to tell the truth and live in
alignment with the truth. And without that, dignity too is lost. And what about compassion.
And what about love. All of that will be lost to our posterity if we are unable to gain our
freedom. And we will not gain our freedom without striving for it with every ounce of courage
and intelligence we can find within us.
Very well said. I have been saying as much for some time. Only President Putin actually lives
by those aphorisms. I shall visit your website. Thank you
Exactly! And Gorbachev was clearly a fool to have taken up US/Nato on a gentleman's promise.
It is equally probable he was bought off or was an absolute dunce.
There is, actually, no excuse for Gorbachev's giving away the store without an iron-clad
treaty, ratified in both the USSR and the USA.
It took years to get a treaty between Hungary and romania.
It took years to get a treaty between Ukraine and Romania.
It took years for Romania and other Eastern Bloc countries to be accedted into NATO. There
were numerous contingencies to be satisfied.
And Gorbachev just says, "OK, Whatever you say, I believe you!
It does not wash.
Gorbachev was no fool. He knew the West's promises were nothing, but he also knew his country
was bankrupt. He gave Russia a breathing space, which after the pillage under Yeltsin, has
proved beneficial.
The US has threatened the USSR/Russia since 1918 when the UK, USA and their allies including
Australia invaded from 7 different directions in a 3 year campaign. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_intervention...
Then there was the 1945 dropping of the atomic bombs in Nagasaki and Hiroshima which were
more to threaten the Soviets than Japan.
Immediately following that was the occupation of South Korea and the stationing of more
atomic bombs there.
But the real clincher was the stationing of nuclear weapons in NATO countries right on the
border of the Soviet Union. The huge, highly realistic and nuclear armed Abel Archer war
games in 1983, not only nearly caused an actual nuclear war but also caused many in the
Soviet leadership to believe that resistance beyond its own borders against America was a
zero sum game.
That combined with US subversion and no doubt bribes and false promises leads to only one
conclusion. Russia has good reason to be afraid of America.
Yes, Russia has good reason to be afraid of the US on two fronts -- 1 - US terrorism and 2 -
imposition of depraved and destructive US political ideologies.
The enemy here is capitalism -- Russia (and China) pose threats to the dominance of U.S.
capital and therefore are demonized and lied to and for that matter treated in any manner
conducive to the continued dominance of U.S. capital. This is the nature of capitalist
relations between nations in its imperialist stage. It is a race to the death to crown the
chief exploiter and manipulator of collective human labor and the commodities it produces. In
this stage of capitalism if it isn't the U.S. who is scheming to rule it would be another.
The only solution is to put an end to the rule of capital.
Maybe capitalism is the foundation of the problem, but the framework is militarism, weapons
production and sales, attacking people around the world, spying on everyone, and imprisoning
the underclass to keep them from attacking the wealthy. Take away those structural elements
and the US will collapse.
Death and destruction are the only visible supports for the US as a
"country". Other countries are busily caring for refugees, addressing fossil fuel and methane
gas damage, providing health care, and advancing science and the arts. Not the US. The US
today is weapons + carnage +threatening other countries + internal political collapse.
Are we not aware that the US foreign policy is by and for the economic benefit of Wall
Street? Lies are the norm to hide WS involvement. National security is a scam to hide lies.
John Stinnett used the FOIA to obtain government documents that established FDR developed
a 17 month agenda with his Wall Street cronies to impose sanctions on Japan to force the
attack on Pearl Harbor. The Japanese codes were easily broken. WW One was also another false
flag operation to prevent default on huge loans WS had made to European nations.
You might also consult with John Perkin's CONFESSIONS OF AN ECONOMIC HIT MAN that details
his (concealed) employment by Wall Street to set up international loans with sovereign
nations designed to go into default using their control of the IMF and WB with enforcement by
the CIA and the US military. cf. Michel Chossudovsky's GLOBALIZATION OF POVERTY and his
GLOBALIZATION OF WAR.
For details on how one of the first arrangements with the CIA and Wall Street was arranged
by Allen Dulles, even before he was appointed Director of the CIA, you might read DEVILS
CHESSBOARD by Stephen Kinzer, THE BROTHERS by David Talbot, or CIA AS ORGANIZED CRIME by
Douglass Valentine. Writings by Fletcher Prouty, Antony Sutton, Nomi Prins, and many more are
available. Let me know when you have finished these.
Even professor Michael Hudson has written that Wall Street's (Goldman Sachs) objective in
Greece is to destroy the nation. http://farmwars.info/?p=12078 NEW WORLD ORDER DEAD
AHEAD
Handing the territories of the USSR over to the US on a handshake, that is what Gorbachev
will be known for. It was no mistake. Gorbachev, Yeltsin and Putin are pieces of the same
$hit.
It's hard for me to consider that the Russians didn't assume the Americans were lying. By
withdrawing troops from a pointless deployment, they were saving resources. It was a spiritual
step up for the Russians. Since then, the Russian economy has improved substantially.
The
American government is, by my research, basically a puppet to the banking cabal that has been
profiting from wars since the 1700's.
They were behind and profited from the Russian revolution, the American Civil War, both world wars, the Cold War, the annexation of Palestine
for a Zionist state, and now present efforts to start a third world war, be it
Syria, Iraq, Libya, or wherever trouble can be stirred.
The present demonization of Putin has
been mainly continuation of business as usual. But Putin has stood up to the interests behind
the IMF, the FED, the BIS, etc., making him a hero to the entire educated world. Maybe one day
soon America will join the educated world. One can only hope.
The part of the story missing is what happened next? Hungary, Czech Republic and now Poland
are a bit miffed at the way things have gone. Other than turn their nations into a door mat
that NATO and Russia fight upon what did they get?
They got a missile launching pad that if
war breaks out will be targeted and most likely destroyed. They got an EU that if it
resembles anything, it most closely represents the old Supreme Soviet. Naw. This story has
just begun.
How could any nation trust the USA who has broken every treaty they have agreed to! England
all through history has coveted Russia for their vast natural resources.
England has always been a wicked nation.
Usually articles by Eric Margolis have more substance and are more objective. First, even
today the US cooperates with Russia on several fronts. Today Putin called Trump to thank him
for supplying to Russia by CIA of Info that led to the arrest of several Islamist terrorists
who wanted to explode a bomb in St. Petersburg. Clear example of cooperation.
As far as the promise to Gorbachev of not expanding NATO eastward, it was made to the
leader of the Soviet Union not the leader of Russia. When the Soviet Union collapsed, such
promise simply had no longer any effect since the country to which it was made no longer
existed.
Still the US and other western countries didn't want to expand NATO until Yeltsin
agreed to its expansion to Poland in August 1993 as reported for example in NYT
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/08/26/world/yeltsin-u...
In that article, by the way, it is stated that even then there were big problems between
Russia and Ukraine. So to repeat all the time that the "government of Ukraine was overthrown
in a US-engineered coup" is something I didn't expect from Margolis.
I hardly think so Mr. Margolis. I would say that probably 98% of the population of Canada and
the USA are totally comatose and probably won't even hear the Last Trumpet
"... Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt gripping the nation , believes that this falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia. ..."
With eyebrows suspiciously furrowed, Tucker Carlson sat down tonight with NYU Professor of Russian Studies and contributor to
The Nation , Stephen Cohen, to discuss the 35 page #FakeNews dossier which has gripped the nation with nightmares of golden showers
and other perverted conduct which was to be used by Russia to keep Trump on a leash.
The left leaning Cohen, who holds a Ph.D. in government and Russian studies from Columbia, taught at Princeton for 30 years before
moving to NYU. He has spent a lifetime deeply immersed in US-Russian relations, having been both a long standing friend of Mikhail
Gorbachev and an advisor to President George H.W. Bush. His wife is also the editor of uber liberal " The Nation," so it's safe to
assume he's not shilling for Trump - and Tucker was right to go in with eyebrows guarded against such a heavyweight.
Cohen, who has been quite vocal against the Russophobic witch hunt
gripping the nation , believes that this
falsified 35 page report is part of an "endgame" to mortally wound Trump before he even sets foot in the White House, by grasping
at straws to paint him as a puppet of the Kremlin. The purpose of these overt attempts to cripple Trump, which have relied on ham-handed
intelligence reports that, according to Cohen "even the New York Times referred to as lacking any evidence whatsoever," is to stop
any kind of détente or cooperation with Russia.
Cohen believes that these dangerous accusations attempting to brand a US President as a puppet of a foreign government constitute
a "grave American national security threat."
"... By George Washington. Originally published at Washington's Blog ..."
"... When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July 1991, Woerner told the Russians that "We should not allow [ ] the isolation of the USSR from the European community." According to the Russian memorandum of conversation, " Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13 of 16 NATO members support this point of view)." (See Document 30) ..."
"... Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding NATO ..."
"... IIRC, the U.S. has, historically, not lived up to one treaty in its entire existence. Quite a remarkable accomplishment, no? Methinks the chickens are coming home to roost, yes? ..."
"... Trump's doubts about NATO, including his demands that European members pay more, are presented as evidence (it is hinted) of his collusion with the evil Putin. ..."
"... History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS (Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are, and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-( ..."
"... first draft of history ..."
"... Zero acknowledgement by any of the deep permastate types that the consent of the governed is even necessary. We the people are simply the bobbleheads to be manipulated by the lying sociopaths in power. ..."
"... Any thing like this pretty much ignores the fact that all of the Visegad four (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary) were pushing VERY strongly to get included in NATO, as for them at the time it was the one clear signal that they are not in the USSRs zone of dominion any more. Anything else would just not do ..."
"... The EU has been willing to say "no" to the much more geographically important Turkey for decades. Why does Poland have more clout? ..."
"... the whole treatment of Russia as a beaten country (when they very clearly didn't feel like that) was beyong stupid, it was , and the West should have learned from history (how it ended with Germany post WW1). ..."
"... My point is that way too often I have seen this as "America does this, America does that" – without considering the wider picture. Yes, ultimately it was US decision (because they could have just keep saying no, although polish minority in the US is large – it's larger than Jewish, although I suspect there is an overlap. Also, Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and emigrated after the communist takeover, so there you go, she might have played a role in turning Clinton around) – but it wasn't that they were rushing to do it from day 0 and forcing the V4 to get into NATO just to do one over Russia. ..."
"... I suspect one of the reasons they actually agreed to it in the end was because they thought Russia was done for (who in the world cared for Russia in 1995-1998? Apart from looters, that is, both foreign and domestic), and NATO was just a fomality that would be gone in a decade. ..."
"... My point is that way too often I have seen this as "America does this, America does that" – without considering the wider picture Also, Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and emigrated after the communist takeover, so there you go, she might have played a role in turning Clinton around) – but it wasn't that they were rushing to do it from day 0 and forcing the V4 to get into NATO just to do one over Russia. ..."
"... who in the world cared for Russia in 1995-1998? Apart from looters, that is, both foreign and domestic ..."
"... "Russia is finished" ..."
"... WW2 was "won" by Russia defeating Germany, while losing 30 million people. The US "won" WW2 by bombing a quarter million citizens at Hiroshima/Nagasake, while losing maybe 250,000 soldiers in the total war effort.. ..."
"... Gentlemen prefer jackboots ? ..."
"... The U.S. and its allies made a set of commitments to Gorbachev, and then Bill Clinton broke those promises. Full stop. Bush then doubled down. Obama and Trump added Albania, Croatia and Montenegro because I guess it's now a required machismo ritual. (interestinng coincidence that accessions just happened to be scheduled for the first six months after open-seat Presidential elections, no?) The consequences of those decisions are the responsibility of the inhabitants of the White House, and no one else's. ..."
"... The recent history, with savage civil wars in Yugoslavia, Moldavia and Ukraine, shows that there are enough wacky people imbued with detestation for their neighbours to overwhelm the sane ones. Echoes of what some Ukrainian groups tell about e.g. Poles make me think we should be wary of those old grievances. ..."
"... A century ago, Russians had a positive image amongst Eastern Europeans (except Poles). The ones who were the target of contempt and detestation were the Austrians and the Turks. Perhaps the next generation will have entirely forgotten about the Russians of the Warsaw Pact, the COMECON and the "limited sovereignty". ..."
"... Lost in your one-sided account of the brave Hungarians is the fact that a non-trivial contingent of those invading the USSR during the Second World War were Hungarians. There were a lot of fascists in Hungary, and no joke about it, and they willingly participated in the invasion. ..."
"... Instead the western powers got greedy, expanded up the the Russian border, lined it with Special Forces formations and future nuclear first-strike-missiles and holds NATO tank parades literally blocks away from the Russian border. Epic fail that. ..."
"... Nice thought but the military industry can't have peace and harmony. NATO was very quick to start talking about Islam as the next threat after the fall of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The entrenched USG neocons will foster a demonization of Putin (and Russia) until they achieve WWIII; but an objective evaluation of Russian superiority in weapons suggests that theirs is a suicide mission. Peruse the saga of the USS Donald Cook in the Black Sea, and the US military fear of Soviet defense missile systems, to understand. ..."
"... except that it wasn't as bad as its immediate successor. ..."
"... the reneging of Baker's promise + regime change in Iraq + regime change in Libya + near regime change in Syria demonstrate to everyone outside of Nato that the US/the West can't be trusted to honor international law -- regardless of the administration (Dem or Rep). And other countries will act accordingly ..."
"... In the book "Who Lost Russia", the author, Peter Conradi, mentions a political lobby group funded by the defense contractors to promote NATO expansion to the East in the 1990s. Does anyone have information concerning this group and its influence? ..."
"... By the late 90s, with Yeltsin in charge, Russian opposition was less of an issue. In the end, NATO stumbled into enlargement, telling itself that it would be confined to the V3/4 and that would be it. But as a number of us pointed out at the time, once you start, there's no logical point at which you stop. And so Ukraine. ..."
"... tell it to the American Natives (Indians). The US lies to eveyone to gain land and leverage. ..."
"... Another problem, and much more significant one, was that Russia adopted capitalist at the very unfortunate moment of the domination of neoliberalism which led to many catastrophic decisions. ..."
"... I find it hard to believe that Gorbachev, or indeed anyone in international politics, would trust the US government or US ruling class absent some sort of material verification, guarantees, even hostages. That requires some explanation. ..."
"... The Warsaw Pact was USSR military colonialism. NATO was US military colonialism. What does an imperial power do when its "enemy" vacates a space, asking for neutrality? It takes over, demanding tribute. The tribute in this case was neoliberalism, to the benefit of US business, especially the MIC. ..."
Posted on
December 15, 2017 by Yves Smith Yves here. This
is a more purely geopolitical piece than we normally run. The reason for featuring it is that this bit of history is vital to understanding
current US/Russian relations.
Even though experts have acknowledged that Secretary of State James Baker promised Mikhail Gorbachev that the Western powers would
not move NATO into former Warsaw Pact countries, they claimed that the Russians were naive to have taken this promise as meaningful.
The argument went that the US regarded only obligations committed to writing as binding, while the Soviets regarded firm, unambiguous
statement by parties authorized to negotiate as commitments.
As the post below describes in detail, the Russians have more basis for feeling abused by the US and its allies than the US defense
above indicates. Not only did Baker repeat his "not one inch eastward" declaration on three separate occasions, many national leaders
and top-level diplomats in NATO countries, such as Maggie Thatcher, Helmut Kohl, and Francois Mitterand, both affirmed that they
would respect the security interests of the former USSR and would also involve it in European "security structures."
And as we've said repeatedly, when the Clinton Administration broke these commitments by moving NATO eastward in 1997, cold warrior
George Kennan predicted that it would be the worst geopolitical mistake the US ever made.
The U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union at the time it broke up and many other experts have
said that the West promised Gorbachev that – if the USSR allowed German re-unification – NATO wouldn't move "one inch
closer" to Russia.
While Western leaders have long denied the promise, newly-declassified documents now prove this.
The National Security Archive at George Washington University
reported Tuesday:
U.S. Secretary of State James Baker's famous "not one inch eastward" assurance about NATO expansion in his meeting with Soviet
leader Mikhail Gorbachev on February 9, 1990, was part of a cascade of assurances about Soviet security given by Western leaders
to Gorbachev and other Soviet officials throughout the process of German unification in 1990 and on into 1991, according to declassified
U.S., Soviet, German, British and French documents posted today by the National Security Archive at George Washington University
( http://nsarchive.gwu.edu ).
The documents show that multiple national leaders were considering and rejecting Central and Eastern European membership in
NATO as of early 1990 and through 1991, that discussions of NATO in the context of German unification negotiations in 1990 were
not at all narrowly limited to the status of East German territory, and that subsequent Soviet and Russian complaints about being
misled about NATO expansion were founded in written contemporaneous memcons and telcons at the highest levels
The documents reinforce former CIA Director Robert Gates's criticism of "pressing ahead with expansion of NATO eastward [in
the 1990s], when Gorbachev and others were led to believe that wouldn't happen."
***
The first concrete assurances by Western leaders on NATO began on January 31, 1990, when West German Foreign Minister Hans-Dietrich
Genscher opened the bidding with a major public speech at Tutzing, in Bavaria, on German unification. The U.S. Embassy in Bonn
(see Document 1) informed Washington that Genscher made clear "that the changes in Eastern Europe and the German unification process
must not lead to an 'impairment of Soviet security interests.' Therefore, NATO should rule out an 'expansion of its territory
towards the east, i.e. moving it closer to the Soviet borders.'" The Bonn cable also noted Genscher's proposal to leave the East
German territory out of NATO military structures even in a unified Germany in NATO
This latter idea of special status for the GDR territory was codified in the final German unification treaty signed on September
12, 1990, by the Two-Plus-Four foreign ministers (see Document 25). The former idea about "closer to the Soviet borders" is written
down not in treaties but in multiple memoranda of conversation between the Soviets and the highest-level Western interlocutors
(Genscher, Kohl, Baker, Gates, Bush, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Major, Woerner, and others) offering assurances throughout 1990 and
into 1991 about protecting Soviet security interests and including the USSR in new European security structures . The two issues
were related but not the same. Subsequent analysis sometimes conflated the two and argued that the discussion did not involve
all of Europe. The documents published below show clearly that it did.
The "Tutzing formula" immediately became the center of a flurry of important diplomatic discussions over the next 10 days in
1990, leading to the crucial February 10, 1990, meeting in Moscow between Kohl and Gorbachev when the West German leader achieved
Soviet assent in principle to German unification in NATO, as long as NATO did not expand to the east
***
The conversations before Kohl's assurance involved explicit discussion of NATO expansion, the Central and East European countries,
and how to convince the Soviets to accept unification. For example, on February 6, 1990, when Genscher met with British Foreign
Minister Douglas Hurd, the British record showed Genscher saying, "The Russians must have some assurance that if, for example,
the Polish Government left the Warsaw Pact one day, they would not join NATO the next ." (See Document 2)
Having met with Genscher on his way into discussions with the Soviets, Baker repeated exactly the Genscher formulation in his
meeting with Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze on February 9, 1990, (see Document 4); and even more importantly, face to face
with Gorbachev
Not once, but three times, Baker tried out the "not one inch eastward" formula with Gorbachev in the February 9, 1990, meeting.
He agreed with Gorbachev's statement in response to the assurances that "NATO expansion is unacceptable." Baker assured Gorbachev
that "neither the President nor I intend to extract any unilateral advantages from the processes that are taking place," and that
the Americans understood that "not only for the Soviet Union but for other European countries as well it is important to have
guarantees that if the United States keeps its presence in Germany within the framework of NATO, not an inch of NATO's present
military jurisdiction will spread in an eastern direction." (See Document 6).
Baker reported: "And then I put the following question to him [Gorbachev]. Would you prefer to see a united Germany outside
of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany to be tied to NATO, with assurances that NATO's
jurisdiction would not shift one inch eastward from its present position? He answered that the Soviet leadership was giving real
thought to all such options [ .] He then added, 'Certainly any extension of the zone of NATO would be unacceptable.'" Baker added
in parentheses, for Kohl's benefit, "By implication, NATO in its current zone might be acceptable." ( See Document 8)
Well-briefed by the American secretary of state, the West German chancellor understood a key Soviet bottom line, and assured
Gorbachev on February 10, 1990: "We believe that NATO should not expand the sphere of its activity." (See Document 9).
All the Western foreign ministers were on board with Genscher, Kohl, and Baker. Next came the British foreign minister, Douglas
Hurd, on April 11, 1990.
***
Hurd reinforced the Baker-Genscher-Kohl message in his meeting with Gorbachev in Moscow, April 11, 1990, saying that Britain
clearly "recognized the importance of doing nothing to prejudice Soviet interests and dignity." (See Document 15)
The Baker conversation with Shevardnadze on May 4, 1990, as Baker described it in his own report to President Bush, most eloquently
described what Western leaders were telling Gorbachev exactly at the moment: "I used your speech and our recognition of the need
to adapt NATO, politically and militarily, and to develop CSCE to reassure Shevardnadze that the process would not yield winners
and losers. Instead, it would produce a new legitimate European structure – one that would be inclusive, not exclusive." (See
Document 17)
Baker said it again, directly to Gorbachev on May 18, 1990 in Moscow, giving Gorbachev his "nine points," which included the
transformation of NATO, strengthening European structures, keeping Germany non-nuclear, and taking Soviet security interests into
account. Baker started off his remarks, "Before saying a few words about the German issue, I wanted to emphasize that our policies
are not aimed at separating Eastern Europe from the Soviet Union. We had that policy before. But today we are interested in building
a stable Europe, and doing it together with you." (See Document 18)
The French leader Francois Mitterrand continued the cascade of assurances by saying the West must "create security conditions
for you, as well as European security as a whole." (See Document 19) Mitterrand immediately wrote Bush in a " cher George
" letter about his conversation with the Soviet leader, that "we would certainly not refuse to detail the guarantees that he would
have a right to expect for his country's security." (See Document 20)
At the Washington summit on May 31, 1990, Bush went out of his way to assure Gorbachev that Germany in NATO would never be
directed at the USSR : "Believe me, we are not pushing Germany towards unification, and it is not us who determines the pace of
this process. And of course, we have no intention, even in our thoughts, to harm the Soviet Union in any fashion. That is why
we are speaking in favor of German unification in NATO without ignoring the wider context of the CSCE, taking the traditional
economic ties between the two German states into consideration. Such a model, in our view, corresponds to the Soviet interests
as well." (See Document 21)
The "Iron Lady" also pitched in, after the Washington summit, in her meeting with Gorbachev in London on June 8, 1990. Thatcher
anticipated the moves the Americans (with her support) would take in the early July NATO conference to support Gorbachev with
descriptions of the transformation of NATO towards a more political, less militarily threatening, alliance . She said to Gorbachev:
"We must find ways to give the Soviet Union confidence that its security would be assured . CSCE could be an umbrella for all
this, as well as being the forum which brought the Soviet Union fully into discussion about the future of Europe." (See Document
22)
The NATO London Declaration on July 5, 1990 had quite a positive effect on deliberations in Moscow, according to most accounts,
giving Gorbachev significant ammunition to counter his hardliners at the Party Congress which was taking place at that moment.
***
As Kohl said to Gorbachev in Moscow on July 15, 1990, as they worked out the final deal on German unification: "We know what
awaits NATO in the future, and I think you are now in the know as well," referring to the NATO London Declaration. (See Document
23)
In his phone call to Gorbachev on July 17, Bush meant to reinforce the success of the Kohl-Gorbachev talks and the message
of the London Declaration. Bush explained: "So what we tried to do was to take account of your concerns expressed to me and others,
and we did it in the following ways: by our joint declaration on non-aggression; in our invitation to you to come to NATO ; in
our agreement to open NATO to regular diplomatic contact with your government and those of the Eastern European countries; and
our offer on assurances on the future size of the armed forces of a united Germany – an issue I know you discussed with Helmut
Kohl. We also fundamentally changed our military approach on conventional and nuclear forces. We conveyed the idea of an expanded,
stronger CSCE with new institutions in which the USSR can share and be part of the new Europe." (See Document 24)
The documents show that Gorbachev agreed to German unification in NATO as the result of this cascade of assurances , and on
the basis of his own analysis that the future of the Soviet Union depended on its integration into Europe, for which Germany would
be the decisive actor. He and most of his allies believed that some version of the common European home was still possible and
would develop alongside the transformation of NATO to lead to a more inclusive and integrated European space, that the post-Cold
War settlement would take account of the Soviet security interests. The alliance with Germany would not only overcome the Cold
War but also turn on its head the legacy of the Great Patriotic War.
But inside the U.S. government, a different discussion continued , a debate about relations between NATO and Eastern
Europe. Opinions differed, but the suggestion from the Defense Department as of October 25, 1990 was to leave "the door ajar"
for East European membership in NATO . (See Document 27)
***
As late as March 1991, according to the diary of the British ambassador to Moscow, British Prime Minister John Major personally
assured Gorbachev, "We are not talking about the strengthening of NATO ." Subsequently, when Soviet defense minister Marshal Dmitri
Yazov asked Major about East European leaders' interest in NATO membership, the British leader responded, " Nothing of the sort
will happen ." (See Document 28)
When Russian Supreme Soviet deputies came to Brussels to see NATO and meet with NATO secretary-general Manfred Woerner in July
1991, Woerner told the Russians that "We should not allow [ ] the isolation of the USSR from the European community." According
to the Russian memorandum of conversation, " Woerner stressed that the NATO Council and he are against the expansion of NATO (13
of 16 NATO members support this point of view)." (See Document 30)
Thus, Gorbachev went to the end of the Soviet Union assured that the West was not threatening his security and was not expanding
NATO
IIRC, the U.S. has, historically, not lived up to one treaty in its entire existence.
Quite a remarkable accomplishment, no?
Methinks the chickens are coming home to roost, yes?
Nice timing for the release of these archives on Dec 12th. Yesterday the WaPo posted an article "based on interviews
with more than 50 current and former U.S. officials" titled "Doubting the Intelligence: Trump Pursues Putin and Leaves a Russian
Threat Unchecked":
Axiomatic to the WaPohacks authors is that NATO ranks right up there with the 1776 Declaration and
the Constitution as a bedrock US principle. Trump's doubts about NATO, including his demands that European members pay more, are
presented as evidence (it is hinted) of his collusion with the evil Putin.
Naturally the new archives released by GWU play no part in the WaPo story two days later, since they aren't "fitted
to the narrative."
History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS (Putin Derangement System) journos insist
that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are, and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which
contrast so painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-(
Any time you hear or read a Russian conspiracy theory in the MSM or elsewhere, substitute the words "Jews" for "Russians" and
the words "International Jewry" for "Russia". Then re-read the sentence.
See how ugly that sentence now looks?
So why should we rightfully decry such racism against Jews or others, but applaud the same sort of racism when it is directed
against Russians?
Interesting to see these first draft of history discussions come out. At roughly the same time, Jeanne Kirkpatrick
wrote an article directed more to a public discussion that the end of the 40-year Cold War could lead to America once again becoming
a normal country in normal times . With its implication that NATO's very existence might not even be necessary anymore.
Gotta say the thing that most disappoints me is that none of these conversations ever actually occurred in any public – anywhere.
There was absolutely zero public discussion about what a post-Cold War world and its mutual obligations might look like.
Zero
acknowledgement by any of the deep permastate types that the consent of the governed is even necessary. We the people
are simply the bobbleheads to be manipulated by the lying sociopaths in power.
You cannot read this alone – I said so before, and will again.
Any thing like this pretty much ignores the fact that all of the Visegad four (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary)
were pushing VERY strongly to get included in NATO, as for them at the time it was the one clear signal that they are not in the
USSRs zone of dominion any more. Anything else would just not do.
It was a symbol, more than anything else. You need to remember that all of those countries had Soviet troops (and nuclear weapons),
some since WW2, and ALL of them had their citizens killed by Soviet troops (Czechoslovakia 1968, Hungary 1956, Poland pre-and
post WW2) within living memory.
Clinton resisted this (for a time, and I believe on advice of his security advisors), but in the end was won over. I have actually
talked to a few people from V4 who were involved in this at a quite high level, so feel like I can comment.
Ignoring the above is to me just a sort of different American bubble that says "everything (for one group good, for another
bad) that happens in the world is because America wishes so". It entirely ignores the history and the political situation in the
area at the time.
That's not to say US couldn't have played it better – but it was not "America wake up and said "let's extend NATO for the kicks
of it"" either.
Maybe Poland has more clout because the rest of Europe and the US see Poland as part of their world. Not so much Turkey, which
didn't get into any European 'game' plan until the end of the Ottoman empire, especially beginning with Ataturk. Before that,
it was more an enemy if anything. And Russia then? Well Russia has always been seen as the big, bad freak who refuses to comply
and conform, submit, to the West's deepest wishes.
I'm reading a book about the Crimean War and even in the middle of the 19th cent. there was widespread sentiment in England
that the Russians were Slavic barbarians threatening the rest of Europe with their size, expansionist ambitions and different
version of Christianity. So perhaps the current Russophobia has deeper roots than we realize and may center on Old Blightey with
the cousins along for the ride. In this scenario Poland became the buffer zone against the Russians and was much quarreled over
by the great powers.
I can't answer that – but the reality is, that US was giving V4 "No" answer when they were lobbying for it, and it took them
years to get there.
If US was so keen to do it, it would have been done by Bush, not Clinton towards the end of hist first term. Clinton told Havel
(and I have it from a person who was in the room at the time) that his military/security advisors were telling him "No".
What difference would it make to the Russians if Clinton was told not to do it and then did it anyway? You are arguing in effect
that the US had good intentions and didn't want to break its word, but that is a secondary issue. The issue here is that not only
did the US break its word, but we have been misled about it.
I was thinking about this in connection with a story about Yemen in the Intercept a couple of days ago. It seems that our ambassador
to Yemen was more hawkish than some others in the Obama Administration. I think we should know as much as possible about how such
decisions ar made and I thought the story was useful, but I can imagine how it would be spun if the mainstream press were ever
pressured into covering our horrific role in Yemen with as much energy as they pour into Russiagate. They would look for a scapegoat
like the ambassador and do everything they could to show that overall the US had good intentions.
My point is not the Russian grievance – that stands. I'd even agree with that it was a dumb move – but the whole treatment
of Russia as a beaten country (when they very clearly didn't feel like that) was beyong stupid, it was , and the West should have
learned from history (how it ended with Germany post WW1).
My point is that way too often I have seen this as "America does this, America does that" – without considering the wider picture.
Yes, ultimately it was US decision (because they could have just keep saying no, although polish minority in the US is large –
it's larger than Jewish, although I suspect there is an overlap. Also, Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and emigrated after
the communist takeover, so there you go, she might have played a role in turning Clinton around) – but it wasn't that they were
rushing to do it from day 0 and forcing the V4 to get into NATO just to do one over Russia.
I suspect one of the reasons they actually agreed to it in the end was because they thought Russia was done for (who in the
world cared for Russia in 1995-1998? Apart from looters, that is, both foreign and domestic), and NATO was just a fomality that
would be gone in a decade.
TBH, I also suspect that the first expansion Russia could have lived with – but the second expansion, especially taking in
Baltics, and any suggestion of having NATO expand more towards Russia's borders was, is and will be seen as a provocation and
a direct threat by Russia. Russia feels safe only when it has a nice plump buffer, preferrably of aligned states.
The "wider picture" is that the US was the preeminent military power at that time. That is a reality that could have been leveraged
into a transition in the terms of competition between Russia and the West. Your suggestion that four small countries should bear
any responsibility for US' failure to follow through on its assurances and to use this opening to put an end to militarized competition
and brinksmanship is impossible to take seriously. It ignores major players, e.g. the good old military-industrial complex (which
here needs to be thought of in international terms), that were seriously threatened by the possibility of a wind-down in tensions.
My point is that way too often I have seen this as "America does this, America does that" – without considering the wider
picture Also, Albright was born in Czechoslovakia and emigrated after the communist takeover, so there you go, she might have
played a role in turning Clinton around) – but it wasn't that they were rushing to do it from day 0 and forcing the V4 to get
into NATO just to do one over Russia.
Trump came into office promising better relations w/Russia and look how that turned out. It "wasn't that Trump was rushing
into" worse relations w/Russia, but it still happened and in a very big hurry or "rush.".
I'd say the "Deep State" agenda was very much in a rush to start aggression against Russia.
Was Trump? Bill Clinton? Bush? Certainly Hillary was. But maybe they were/are just puppets of the Deep State.
who in the world cared for Russia in 1995-1998? Apart from looters, that is, both foreign and domestic
The general view of Russia as a goner was actually a post-1998 phenomenon because of the financial crash, bank failures, currency
depreciation, state bankruptcy -- and the realization of how corrupt, destitute and rotten the "new democratic Russia" was. The
(in)famous article "Russia is finished" by Jeffrey Tayler was published in 2001 -- at a time when Putin had just started
taking control of things.
My parents knew the Korbels in Denver in the 50's, as an interesting aside to the conversation.
I'm on the phone with my mom right now, and she relates that the idea that Madeleine didn't know she was Jewish until 1997
is a bit preposterous as her mother looked very much the part, but it was a different era way back when, and anti-semitism was
such that you might have been turned away on a hotel room when they asked your surname, in some quarters.
"The EU has been willing to say "no" to the much more geographically important Turkey for decades. Why does Poland have more
clout?"
In my opinion, there is some sort of European nationalism, by which I mean the idea that Europe should be a single big nation
state, in most of Europe. This view is not as strong and obvious as single nation state nationalism, but it exists: for example
Giuseppe Mazzini, one of the "founding fathers" of Italy, created two secret societies: the "giovine Italia" [young Italy] for
the unification of Italy, and the "giovine Europa" [young Europe] for the unification of Europe, already in the 19th century before
Italian unification.
The whole idea of a "united Europe" is part of the reason of the EU, so it's natural that Poland, which was already perceived
as an European country, was welcome in the EU; Turkey on the other hand is not generally perceived as European so it's less welcome
(you can see this as racism, or as sense of identity, the difference is quite blurry IMHO).
Russia too would have been welcome into the EU (in my opinion), but I don't think the Russians would have accepted the loss
of sovereignity that this entail.
I think that this has to do with the fact that many (most) European countries were beaten quite hard in WW2, and even the two
european "winners" of WW2 won only in the sense that the USA and the USSR won and they happened to be on the right side of the
war at that time.
So nationalistic identity and pride in most of Europe is, IMHO, a more complex thing than it is in the USA, and Europeans mostly
welcomed the idea of a United Europe.
Perhaps not coincidentally, the ones who appear to be the less attached to the idea of a "United Europe" are the British, who
are the one who still may think they won WW2.
WW2 was "won" by Russia defeating Germany, while losing 30 million people. The US "won" WW2 by bombing a quarter million citizens
at Hiroshima/Nagasake, while losing maybe 250,000 soldiers in the total war effort..
In 1990s, Soviets were the leaving occupants, who were there for 20+ years. They were thorougly despised – that's a fact. Soviets
in 1950s were still often seen as liberators by a majority of the population, but managed to squander that away with bloody suppression
of Hungarians in 50s, and less bloody, but not less jackbooted supression of Prague Spring in 68 (in a way more, since Hungarians
actually fought, while in Prague Spring the killed were unarmed civilians)
Yes, the Soviets were hated occupiers, but so what? The stakes on this are and were enormous, both in traditional Great Power
terms, and with the added dimension of nuclear confrontation.
There were many steps that the US, UK, Germany and France could have taken to provide reassurances and security to the Eastern
European states during the ensuing 20 years short of expanding NATO membership, beginning, of course, with economic integration.
EU membership doesn't necessarily require NATO membership.
Yes, there were domestic "Captive Nations" political pressures in the U.S., but they could have been finessed with smart policy
short of NATO expansion, and in fact, they were. I know it was a terrible strain, but US politicians heroically resisted that
pressure for a full decade -- the first expansion didn't happen until 1999, more than half-way through Clinton's second term.
The U.S. and its allies made a set of commitments to Gorbachev, and then Bill Clinton broke those promises. Full stop. Bush
then doubled down. Obama and Trump added Albania, Croatia and Montenegro because I guess it's now a required machismo ritual.
(interestinng coincidence that accessions just happened to be scheduled for the first six months after open-seat Presidential
elections, no?) The consequences of those decisions are the responsibility of the inhabitants of the White House, and no one else's.
Interestingly, Eastern Europeans detest each other as well: Romanians vs. Hungarians, Poles vs. Ukrainians, Bulgarians vs.
Serbs, etc. Their execration of the historically dominating and boorish Russians is what brings them together -- as well as their
wariness of the overbearing and historically dominating Germany.
Detest is a very strong word and not accurate in this case. There are historical grievances (such as Hungarians wanting to scrap
the Trianon treaty), but most sane people have moved on Same goes for "boorish" Russians – have you ever met a Russian or read
a bit of history about Eastern Europe? And yes, the struggle against German domination dates back to 800-900AD.
The recent history, with savage civil wars in Yugoslavia, Moldavia and Ukraine, shows that there are enough wacky people imbued
with detestation for their neighbours to overwhelm the sane ones. Echoes of what some Ukrainian groups tell about e.g. Poles make
me think we should be wary of those old grievances.
Yes, I did meet Russians. Actually, I worked with them. In fact, I hired some. Very nice guys and fun lads, very intelligent,
conscientious and imaginative (my branch is IT -- I view Russians as the elite there). Not boorish at all (but a bit cynical).
On the other hand, the anecdotes they kept telling about how things were going with police, "businessmen" and politicians back
home made it very clear that those are extremely boorish -- and they were mostly the ones Eastern Europeans had to deal
with. Those stories also explain why my Russian colleagues were so reserved initially, and opened up when they realized how different
the interactions were in Western Europe.
I also had Hungarians and Romanians working with me and the Russians -- and there was
absolutely no problem. All young generation though, they were schoolboys when the Eastern bloc collapsed. Time frame: early 2000s.
A century ago, Russians had a positive image amongst Eastern Europeans (except Poles). The ones who were the target of contempt
and detestation were the Austrians and the Turks. Perhaps the next generation will have entirely forgotten about the Russians
of the Warsaw Pact, the COMECON and the "limited sovereignty".
Want to induce a spitting mad Donald Duck meltdown in a Polish person?
Simply remind them that the only reason that there are Polish people alive in Poland today is because of the Red Army. Anyone
who thinks that the Germans were going to stop at Jews is not familiar with Mein Kampf or Generalplan Ost.
This is not to excuse anything else that the Soviets did in Eastern Europe, but at the same time, it is the only reason those
Polish people are alive to nurse their russophobia.
Lost in your one-sided account of the brave Hungarians is the fact that a non-trivial contingent of those invading the USSR
during the Second World War were Hungarians. There were a lot of fascists in Hungary, and no joke about it, and they willingly
participated in the invasion. If you think that the losses in life and property caused directly by the invading Hungarian fascists
to the Russian and Soviet peoples, both military and civilian, and the war crimes with which they were likely liberally festooned
were not remembered, well, think again. And when the uprising began, those memories probably informed the severity of the Soviet
response.
The Hungarians took up arms and participated in a brutal and genocidal attack against the USSR during the Third Reich's invasion.
This was only slightly more than 10 years before the Hungarian uprising. Realistically, what did you expect the Soviets' reaction
to be to the uprising? Soviet intelligence was surely aware of the Gladio program, and this would only be seen as part and parcel
of this western-guided and sponsored program.
Were the deaths and repression that followed regrettable? Of course they were; I am not maintaining otherwise. But times were
what they were largely due to what had gone before, and to elide that from the account is unbalanced.
I am wondering what would have happened if NATO had not only expanded east but had also let the Russian Federation itself become
part of NATO. Of course countries like Estonia and Lithuania would have squawked about that but they could have been simply told
to have a large cup of shut the **** up. Either that or they would have been neutral countries with NATO to the west as well as
the east (Russia). Can you imagine?
Instead of NATO merely being the military wing of the western powers it would be one that stretched from Vladivostok right through
to the Atlantic. Such an entity would have made it its job to stabilize all the Stans to the south of it as well as Afghanistan
itself. There would never be the scenario, as is the case now, where China and Russia have been forced into a defensive alliance.
Perhaps Russia would have become part of the EU. Imagine the trade possibilities.
Instead the western powers got greedy, expanded up the the Russian border, lined it with Special Forces formations and future
nuclear first-strike-missiles and holds NATO tank parades literally blocks away from the Russian border. Epic fail that.
Nice thought but the military industry can't have peace and harmony. NATO was very quick to start talking about
Islam as the
next threat after the fall of the Soviet Union.
UK even insisted that they needed their nuclear submarines to fight islam.
The entrenched USG neocons will foster a demonization of Putin (and Russia) until they achieve WWIII; but an objective evaluation
of Russian superiority in weapons suggests that theirs is a suicide mission. Peruse the saga of the USS Donald Cook in the Black
Sea, and the US military fear of Soviet defense missile systems, to understand.
except that it wasn't as bad as its immediate successor.
In so far as the major consequences of the policies and decisions taken by Clinton actually occurred during GWB's presidency,
there is little to choose between them.
Extraordinary renditions? Clinton. Military interventions without UNO resolutions? Clinton. Complete dismantling of the financial
sector leading to untrammeled speculation? Clinton. Bombing of foreign countries as a standard policy? Clinton (though with old-fashioned
aeroplanes and long-range missiles, not drones, so there was innovation with Bush).
At the time(clinton era), I was leery of Billary, but I couldn't put my finger on it I was too busy being young and wild and
crazy, as well as keeping body and soul together.
and it was preinternet.
so one had to find alternative narratives regarding the shape of the world where one could people on street corners in the Montrose(Houston)
handing out Lyndon Larouche newsletters, later street people on the Drag in Austin handing out Zines from Zendik Farms, still
wet with ink, or the odd John Bircher at the aa meeting, the closet Klansman at the beer joint as well as more respectable outlets(William
Greider comes to mind).
More to the point of this story, growing up listening to my Half Cherokee Grandad talk about perfidy on the part of the US, I
guess I have always been immune to the usual flagwaving superpatriotism the US gov is not to be trusted. Ever.
It's only since I finally got on the Web, circa 1999, that I've been able to sift through all the chaff, and look at things like
the foreign press and FOIA Docs, that that Feeling has hardened into Certainty.
The more I learn, the more I find that I loathe my country.(see: history of the CIA, for just one egregious crime spree in our
name)
That sucks especially since expressing such dislike is the quickest way to getting lynched in the places I've spent my life(Texas
and the South).
There has been a steady stream of articles and government disclosures that have shown the Clinton years were less than the
rosy picture commonly painted.
This just adds to that narrative. Nothing is being said that we should have had more Bush the elder. But perhaps Clinton wasn't
the answer either.
the reneging of Baker's promise + regime change in Iraq + regime change in Libya + near regime change in Syria demonstrate
to everyone outside of Nato that the US/the West can't be trusted to honor international law -- regardless of the administration
(Dem or Rep). And other countries will act accordingly
In the book "Who Lost Russia", the author, Peter Conradi, mentions a political lobby group funded by the defense contractors
to promote NATO expansion to the East in the 1990s. Does anyone have information concerning this group and its influence?
Olga, you mention the MICC, while to others, it's the MIC. What discourse or determination leads you to that difference? I'm
asking because I agree, and want further documentation, and the elimination of the last "C" is constant, and a great misperception.
I was there. I've never believed that western leaders were being deliberately deceitful about NATO expansion – they were as
much victims of events as anything else, and the situation was moving incredibly fast. Remember that the conversation with Gorbachev
(Document 9) dates from February 1990, barely three months after the fall of the Berlin Wall, when western capitals were in shock,
and the priority was a peaceful reunification of Germany and the exit of Soviet forces stationed there. At that stage, as the
situation changed almost daily, nobody much was thinking about NATO expansion. Indeed, many were wondering if NATO would go on
at all.
Vlade is quite right that there was pressure from the V3 (later 4) for closer ties with the West, and this eventually turned into
membership, but this was not being discussed in early 1990, when the V3 themselves did not want to move from one military bloc
to another, and when it would have been seen as a gratuitous insult to the Soviet Union. On the other hand, there was a lot of
worry about the stability of some of the ex Warsaw Pact countries and the Soviet successor states.
The real issue was the future of NATO itself. NATO had all sorts of pragmatic political advantages for all sorts of nations, including
many in Europe, and it was necessary to find something for it to do. In the absence of a threat, enlargement was more or less
all it could do, and so that was what it spent a long time doing.
By the late 90s, with Yeltsin in charge, Russian opposition
was less of an issue. In the end, NATO stumbled into enlargement, telling itself that it would be confined to the V3/4 and that
would be it. But as a number of us pointed out at the time, once you start, there's no logical point at which you stop. And so
Ukraine.
I'm grinding my teeth when I think about that time when it was possible to effect a genuine reset of relations between Russia
and the West.\
Another problem, and much more significant one, was that Russia adopted capitalist at the very unfortunate moment of the domination
of neoliberalism which led to many catastrophic decisions.
I find it hard to believe that Gorbachev, or indeed anyone in international politics, would trust the US government or US ruling
class absent some sort of material verification, guarantees, even hostages. That requires some explanation.
The article notes dishonesty originated in the Department of Defense. Why am I not surprised?
One the most attractive features of NATO is that it emasculates all its members before the most powerful one. The strongman
gets to know what the others can do militarily and adjusts for that. Its like a secret society – once in, you can't leave even
if you want to. So joining the NATO gang for security actually brings submission. Should the strongest one withdraw into domestic
contemplation the others will just wither away. Horror of horrors, peace might break out. Doubtful? What did we see in Serbia
and Bosnia? Remind me.
The Warsaw Pact was USSR military colonialism. NATO was US military colonialism. What does an imperial power do when its "enemy"
vacates a space, asking for neutrality? It takes over, demanding tribute. The tribute in this case was neoliberalism, to the benefit
of US business, especially the MIC.
NATO was formed in 1948 response to the Soviet refusal to withdraw from the Eastern European nations it continued to occupy
with Soviet troops and control with puppet governments after WWll. The Soviet response was to form the Warsaw Pact- consisting
of those very same nations: (East) Germany, Poland, Hungary, Czechoslavakia, Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania. The only time Warsaw
Pact troops were used militarily was to put down rebellions by its own members: Hungary in 1956; Czechoslavakia in 1968.
The collapse of the Soviet empire- its Eastern European "sphere of influence"- began with the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989
and culminated in the collapse of the Soviet "union" in 1991. In subsequent years, all of the Warsaw Pact members, plus the illegally
annexed and occupied Baltic nations of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, having reclaimed their sovereignty, also made a point of
joining NATO- to ensure that a reawakened Russian bear did not return to do even more damage.
Western leaders in 1990, seeking to reassure Gorbachev regarding German unification, had no standing to negotiate away the
future foreign policies of those nations which had endured half a century of the failed Soviet experiment and were still within
the Soviet "sphere of influence". In any case, how do you keep a "promise" to a political entity- the USSR- which no longer exists?
The nations of Eastern Europe chose to join NATO; they were not coerced into doing so. Russian actions in Ukraine have validated
their pragmatism in joining NATO. Although Putin described the demise of the USSR as "the greatest geopolitical disaster of the
20th Century", Russia does not have some sort of divine right to rebuild the Soviet empire and it "sphere of influence". NATO
is not a threat to Russia; it is only a threat to those who would seek to rebuild its lost empire.
Sorry, NATO is a club, just like the EU, which has refused entry to Turkey. NATO decides who to let in. Outsiders don't have
any rights, any more than Quebec could demand to join France.
"NATO decides who to let in". Precisely! All of the former Warsaw Pact members, plus the Baltic states, asked to join NATO,
and were granted membership. Don't the nations of Eastern Europe- after fifty years of Soviet (Russian) domination, have the right
to decide their own future, and to decide which alliances to join?
Considering the post WWll history of Eastern Europe -- the Soviet domination until the Soviet collapse -- Russia complaining about
NATO expansion is tantamout to a burglar complaining that his victims have installed a burglar alarm.
Canada has taken a lead among NATO countries in approving heavy weapons sales to the
government and armed forces of Ukraine. The Liberal Party government of Prime Minister Justin
Trudeau announced the decision on December 13.
The decision by Washington's junior partner in Ottawa is a blow to human rights
organizations and others in the U.S. and internationally who argue that increasing the arms
flow to the regime in Kyiv will only escalate Ukraine's violence against the people's republics
of Donetsk and Lugansk in eastern Ukraine.
Ukraine was compelled to sign the 'Minsk-2' ceasefire and peace agreement on Feb 12, 2015.
Germany and France endorsed the agreement and have pretended to stand by it. But Ukraine has
violated Minsk-2 ( text here ) ever
since its signing, with impunity from Kyiv's allies in western Europe and North America.
Minsk-2 was endorsed by the UN Security Council on
Feb 17, 2015. That shows the regard which NATO members such as the U.S. and Canada attach to
the world body -- the UN it is a useful tool when it can be manipulated to serve their
interests, otherwise it is an annoyance to be ignored. Witness their boycotting of the UN
General Assembly discussion (and eventual adoption) on July 7, 2017 of the Treaty on the
Abolition of Nuclear Weapons .
"... History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS (Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are, and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-( ..."
Nice timing for the release of these archives on Dec 12th. Yesterday the WaPo
posted an article "based on interviews with more than 50 current and former U.S. officials"
titled "Doubting the Intelligence: Trump Pursues Putin and Leaves a Russian Threat
Unchecked":
Axiomatic to the WaPohacks authors is that NATO ranks right up
there with the 1776 Declaration and the Constitution as a bedrock US principle. Trump's
doubts about NATO, including his demands that European members pay more, are presented as
evidence (it is hinted) of his collusion with the evil Putin.
Naturally the new archives released by GWU play no part in the WaPo story two days
later, since they aren't "fitted to the narrative."
History is bunk, as ol' Henry Ford said: Americans live in the eternal now. Our PDS
(Putin Derangement System) journos insist that Putin is bad to the bone, as all Russkis are,
and there's just no reason for it except for their dark slavic hearts which contrast so
painfully with our bright pure red white 'n blue ones. :-(
Any time you hear or read a Russian conspiracy theory in the MSM or elsewhere, substitute
the words "Jews" for "Russians" and the words "International Jewry" for "Russia". Then
re-read the sentence.
See how ugly that sentence now looks?
So why should we rightfully decry such racism against Jews or others, but applaud the same
sort of racism when it is directed against Russians?
Also the concept of "Neoliberal jihad is valid, but it is better to call it Neoliberal World revolution as it was borrowed
from Trotskyism
Notable quotes:
"... Jihad vs. McWorld ..."
"... In the two decades since Barber's book, this conflict has seemed to play out along overtly cultural lines: with Islamic extremism representing jihad, in opposition to Western neoliberalism representing McWorld. ..."
"... Linking Brexit and Trump to global right-wing tribal nationalisms doesn't mean conflating them all, of course. ..."
"... Yet at the same time, we can't understand our 21st century world without a recognition of this widespread phenomenon of global, tribal nationalism. ..."
In his ground-breaking
1995 book Jihad vs. McWorld , political scientist Benjamin Barber posits that the
global conflicts of the early 21st century would be driven by two opposing but equally
undemocratic forces: neoliberal corporate globalization (which he dubbed "McWorld") and
reactionary tribal nationalisms (which he dubbed "Jihad"). Although distinct in many ways, both
of these forces, Barber persuasively argues, succeed by denying the possibilities for
democratic consensus and action, and so both must be opposed by civic engagement and activism
on a broad scale.
In the two decades since Barber's book, this conflict has seemed to play out along overtly
cultural lines: with Islamic extremism representing jihad, in opposition to Western
neoliberalism representing McWorld. Case in pitch-perfect point: the Al Qaeda terrorist attacks
on the World Trade Center. Yet despite his use of the Arabic word Jihad, Barber is clear that
reactionary tribalism is a worldwide phenomenon -- and in 2016 we're seeing particularly
striking examples of that tribalism in Western nations such as Great Britain and the United
States.
Britain's vote this week in favor of leaving the European Union was driven entirely by such
reactionary tribal nationalism. The far-right United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) and its
leader Nigel Farage
led the charge in favor of Leave , as exemplified by a recent UKIP poster featuring a photo
of Syrian refugees with the caption " Breaking point: the EU has failed
us ." Farage and his allies like to point to demographic statistics about how much the UK
has changed in the last few decades , and more
exactly how the nation's white majority has been somewhat shifted over that time by the
arrival
of sizeable African and Asian immigrant communities.
It's impossible not to link the UKIP's emphases on such issues of immigration and demography
to the presidential campaign of the one prominent U.S. politician who is
cheering for the Brexit vote : presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump. From his
campaign-launching speech about Mexican immigrant "criminals and rapists" to his proposal to
ban Muslim immigration and his "Make American Great Again" slogan, Trump has relied on
reactionary tribal nationalism at every stage of his campaign, and has received the
enthusiastic endorsement
of white supremacist and far-right organizations as a result. For such American tribal
nationalists, the 1965 Immigration Act is the chief bogeyman, the origin point of continuing
demographic shifts that have placed white America in a precarious position.
The only problem with that narrative is that it's entirely inaccurate. What the 1965 Act did
was reverse a
recent, exclusionary trend in American immigration law and policy, returning the nation to
the more inclusive and welcoming stance it had taken throughout the rest of its history.
Moreover, while the numbers of Americans from Latin American, Asian, and Muslim cultures have
increased in recent decades, all of those
communities have been part of o
ur national community from its origin points . Which is to say, this right-wing tribal
nationalism isn't just opposed to fundamental realities of 21st century American identity -- it
also depends on historical and national narratives that are as mythic as they are
exclusionary.
Linking Brexit and Trump to global right-wing tribal nationalisms doesn't mean conflating
them all, of course. Although Trump rallies have featured troubling instances of violence, and
although the
murderer of British politican Jo Cox was an avowed white supremacist and Leave supporter,
the right-wing Islamic extremism of groups such as Al Qaeda, ISIS, and Boko Haram rely far more
consistently and centrally on violence and terrorism in support of their worldview and goals.
Such specific contexts and nuances are important and shouldn't be elided.
Yet at the same time, we can't understand our 21st century world without a recognition of
this widespread phenomenon of global, tribal nationalism. From ISIS to UKIP, Trump to France's
Jean-Marie Le Pen, such reactionary forces have become and remain dominant players across the
world, influencing local and international politics, economics, and culture. Benjamin Barber
called this trend two decades ago, and we would do well to read and remember his analyses -- as
well as his call for civic engagement and activism to resist these forces and fight for
democracy.
"... "Meanwhile, figures posted by the Pentagon last month -- with little media attention -- revealed that the number of US troops deployed in the Middle East as a whole had soared by 33 percent over the previous four months, with the sharpest increases taking place in a number of Persian Gulf countries, indicating advanced preparations for a new US war against Iran. ..."
The Russia-gate 'scandal' sideshow provided a very useful diversion while military
preparations were advanced:
"While still on the books, the War Powers Act has long ago been turned into a dead letter
by the quarter century of US wars of aggression that have followed the Stalinist
bureaucracy's dissolution of the Soviet Union, all waged without a declaration of war by
Congress.
"Both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have willingly acquiesced in the de facto
concentration of dictatorial power in the hands of the 'commander in chief' in the
all-important matter of the waging of foreign wars.
"The latest letter from the Trump administration, however, represents another qualitative
step in this protracted degeneration of American democracy and the elimination of the last
pretenses of civilian control over the military. [ ]
"The Trump White House has removed caps imposed on troop levels under the Obama
administration, leaving it up to the military commanders to escalate US deployments at will.
Obama's caps themselves were routinely circumvented through so-called temporary deployments
that saw far more troops sent into US wars than were officially on the books.
"The secrecy surrounding troop deployments has been highlighted in recent months [ ] the
so-called slip of the tongue by the commander of US special operations forces in Iraq and
Syria who told a Pentagon press conference that 4,000 US troops were on the ground in Syria.
He quickly caught himself and repeated the official figure of 500. Subsequently, the Pentagon
allowed that the real number was over 2,000.
"Meanwhile, figures posted by the Pentagon last month -- with little media attention
-- revealed that the number of US troops deployed in the Middle East as a whole had soared by
33 percent over the previous four months, with the sharpest increases taking place in a
number of Persian Gulf countries, indicating advanced preparations for a new US war against
Iran.
"These deployments are kept secret or effectively concealed not out of any concern about
'tipping off the enemy,' which in virtually every case is well aware of the level of US
military aggression against their countries. Rather, it is aimed at keeping the information
from the American people, which has no interest in continuing the ongoing military
interventions in Afghanistan, the Middle East and Africa, much less launching new and
potentially world catastrophic wars against Iran, North Korea and even China and Russia.
"In terms of the waging of semi-secret wars abroad, as with attacks on democratic rights
and the social conditions of the working class at home, Trump represents not an aberration,
but rather the culmination of protracted processes that have unfolded under both Democratic
and Republican administrations, which have ceded ever greater power over US foreign policy to
US military commanders. This trend has only deepened under Trump, with an active duty general
serving as national security advisor, and two recently retired Marine generals filling the
posts of defense secretary and White House chief of staff.
"With US forces on the borders of North Korea, China, and Russia on a hair-trigger, the
continuous assertion of ever greater war-making powers to the military brass massively
increases the danger that a miscalculation, misunderstanding, or accident could quickly lead
to full-scale nuclear war.
"Trump's further assault on the War Powers Act has elicited no protest from the Democrats
in Congress. They are not opposed to the government's domination by the military or the drive
to war. Their differences are merely of a tactical character, expressed in a campaign of
anti-Russia hysteria waged in collaboration with sections of the US military and intelligence
apparatus in preparation for a new and far more terrible conflagration."
"... Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, " ..."
During yesterday's Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing, James Clapper, former director
of national intelligence, put the kibosh on a major anti-Donald Trump talking point that 17
federal intelligence agencies have concluded that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential
election.
That talking point was amplified last October, when Hillary Clinton
stated the following at the third presidential debate: "We have 17, 17 intelligence
agencies, civilian and military, who have all concluded that these espionage attacks, these
cyber-attacks, come from the highest levels of the Kremlin. And they are designed to influence
our election. I find that deeply disturbing."
Clinton was referring to an October 7, 2016 joint
statement from the Homeland Security Department and Office of the Director of National
Intelligence claiming, "The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian
Government directed the recent compromises of emails from U.S. persons and institutions,
including from U.S. political organizations."
The statement was followed by a January 6, 2017 U.S. Intelligence Community report assessing
Russian intentions during the presidential election.
While the U.S. Intelligence Community is indeed made up of 17 agencies, Clapper made clear
in his testimony yesterday that the community's assessments regarding alleged Russian
interference were not the product of all seventeen agencies but of three – the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the National Security
Agency (NSA).
Referring to the assessments, Clapper
stated : "As you know, the I.C. was a coordinated product from three agencies; CIA, NSA and
the FBI, not all 17 components of the intelligence community. Those three under the aegis of my
former office."
Later in the hearing, Clapper corrected Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) when Franken claimed that
all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concluded Russia attempted to influence the election.
FRANKEN: And I want to thank General Clapper and – and Attorney General Yates for
– for appearing today. We have – the intelligence communities have concluded all 17
of them that Russia interfered with this election. And we all know how that's right.
CLAPPER: Senator, as I pointed out in my statement Senator Franken, it was there were only
three agencies that directly involved in this assessment plus my office
FRANKEN: But all 17 signed on to that?
CLAPPER: Well, we didn't go through that – that process, this was a special situation
because of the time limits and my – what I knew to be to who could really contribute to
this and the sensitivity of the situation, we decided it was a constant judgment to restrict it
to those three. I'm not aware of anyone who dissented or – or disagreed when it came
out.
The January 6 U.S. intelligence community report is titled, "Background to
'Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections': The Analytic Process and
Cyber Incident Attribution."
The report makes clear it is a product of three intelligence agencies and not 17.
The opening states: "This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated
among the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the
National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and
disseminated by those three agencies."
Following Clinton's presidential debate
claim about "17 intelligence agencies," PolitiFact rated her statement as "true."
However, within its ruling, PolitiFact conceded:
We don't know how many separate investigations into the attacks there were. But the Director
of National Intelligence, which speaks for the country's 17 federal intelligence agencies,
released a joint statement saying the intelligence community at large is confident that Russia
is behind recent hacks into political organizations' emails.
PolitiFact's "true" judgement was the basis for a USA Today
piece titled, "Yes, 17 intelligence agencies really did say Russia was behind hacking."
Aaron Klein is Breitbart's Jerusalem bureau chief and senior investigative reporter. He
is a New York Times bestselling author and hosts the popular weekend talk radio program, "Aaron Klein Investigative
Radio." Follow him onTwitter @AaronKleinShow.Follow him
onFacebook.
"... The New York Times continues its sorry pattern of falsifying the record on Russia-gate, giving its readers information that the newspaper knows not to be true, reports Robert Parry. ..."
"... Trimming the total down to $44,000 and admitting that only a few of those ads actually dealt with Clinton and Trump would be even worse for the Russia-gate narrative. ..."
"... The only acceptable conclusion, it seems, is "Russia Guilty!" ..."
The New York Times continues its sorry pattern of falsifying the record on
Russia-gate, giving its readers information that the newspaper knows not to be true, reports
Robert Parry.
If Russia-gate is the massive scandal that we are told it is by so many Important People --
across the U.S. mainstream media and the political world -- why do its proponents have to
resort to lies and exaggerations to maintain the pillars supporting the narrative?
A new example on Thursday was The New York Times' statement
that a Russian agency "spent $100,000 on [Facebook's] platform to influence the United States
presidential election last year" – when the Times knows that statement is not true.
According to Facebook, only 44 percent of that amount appeared before the U.S.
presidential election in 2016 (i.e., $44,000) and few of those ads addressed the actual
election. And, we know that the Times is aware of the truth because it was acknowledged in a
Times article in early October.
As part of that article, Times correspondents Mike Isaac and Scott Shane reported
that the ads also covered a wide range of other topics: "There was even a Facebook group for
animal lovers with memes of adorable puppies that spread across the site with the help of paid
ads."
As nefarious as the Times may think it is for Russians to promote a Facebook page about
"adorable puppies," the absurdity
of that concern – and the dishonesty of the Times then "forgetting" what it itself
reported just two months ago about the timing and contents of these "Russian-linked ads"
– tells you a great deal about Russia-gate.
On Thursday, the Times chose to distort what it already knew to be true presumably because
it didn't want to make the $100,000 ad buy (which is not a particularly large sum) look even
smaller and less significant by acknowledging the pre-election total was less than half that
modest amount – and even that total had little to do with the election.
Why would the Times lie? Because to tell the truth would undercut the narrative of evil
Russians defeating Hillary Clinton and putting Donald Trump in the White House – the core
narrative of Russia-gate.
Another relevant fact is that Facebook failed to find any "Russian-linked" ads during its
first two searches and only detected the $100,000 after a personal visit from Sen. Mark Warner,
D-Virginia, the vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee and a leading legislator on
Internet regulation.
In other words, Facebook's corporate executives dredged up something to appease Warner. That
way, Warner and the Democrats could blame Russia for the Trump presidency, sparing further
criticism of Clinton's dreadful campaign (in which she labeled half of Trump's voters
"deplorables") and her neo-liberal economic policies (and neo-conservative foreign policies)
that have alienated much of America's working class as well as many progressives.
Leaving Out Context
The Times also might have put the $100,000 in "Russian-linked" ads over a two-year period in
the context of Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue, but the Times didn't do that –
apparently because it would make even the full $100,000 look like a pittance.
Trimming the total down to $44,000 and admitting that only a few of those ads actually dealt
with Clinton and Trump would be even worse for the Russia-gate narrative.
Ironically, the Times' latest false depiction of the $100,000 in ads as designed "to
influence" the 2016 election appeared in an
article about Facebook determining that other Russian-linked ads, which supposedly had a
powerful effect on Great Britain's Brexit vote, totaled just three ads at the cost of 97 cents.
(That is not a misprint.)
According to Facebook, the three ads, which focused on immigration, were viewed some 200
times by Britons over four days in May 2016. Of course, the response from British
parliamentarians who wanted to blame the Brexit vote on Moscow was to assert that Facebook must
have missed something. It couldn't be that many Britons had lost faith in the promise of the
European Union for their own reasons.
We have seen a similar pattern with allegations about Russian interference in German and
French elections, with the initial accusations being widely touted but not so much the later
conclusions by serious investigations knocking down the claims. [See, for instance,
Consortiumnews.com's " German
Intel Clears Russia on Interference. "]
The only acceptable conclusion, it seems, is "Russia Guilty!"
These days in Official Washington, it has become almost forbidden to ask for actual evidence
that would prove the original claim that Russia "hacked" Democratic emails, even though the
accusation came from what President Obama's Director of National Intelligence James Clapper
acknowledged were "hand-picked" analysts from the CIA, FBI and National Security Agency.
These "hand-picked" analysts produced the
evidence-lite Jan. 6 "assessment" about Russia "hacking" the emails and slipping them to
WikiLeaks – a scenario denied by both WikiLeaks and Russia.
When that "assessment" was released almost a year ago, even the Times' Scott Shane noticed
the lack of proof,
writing : "What is missing from the [the Jan. 6] public report is what many Americans most
eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government
engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially amounts to
'trust us.'"
But the Times soon "forgot" what Shane had inconveniently noted and began reporting the
Russian "hacking" as accepted wisdom.
The 17-Agencies Canard
Whenever scattered expressions of skepticism arose from a few analysts or non-mainstream
media, the doubts were beaten back by the claim that "all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies"
concurred in the conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered the hacking to
hurt Hillary Clinton and help Donald Trump. And what kind of nut would doubt the collective
judgment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies!
Though the 17-agency canard was never true, it served an important purpose in establishing
the Russia-gate groupthink. Wielding the "all 17 intelligence agencies" club, the U.S.
mainstream media pounded politicians and policymakers into line, making any remaining skeptics
seem more out of step and crazy.
So, in May 2017, when Clapper (along with former CIA Director John Brennan) admitted in
congressional testimony that it wasn't true that all 17 agencies concurred in the Russian
hacking conclusion, those statements received very little attention in the mainstream
media.
The New York Times among other major news outlets just continued asserting the 17-agency
falsehood until the Times was finally pressured to correct its
lie in late June , but that only led to the Times shifting to slightly different but still
misleading wording, citing a "consensus" among the intelligence agencies without mentioning a
number or by simply stating the unproven hacking claim as flat fact.
Even efforts to test the Russian-hack claims through science were ignored or ridiculed. When
former NSA technical director William Binney conducted
experiments that showed that the known download speed of one batch of DNC emails could not
have occurred over the Internet but matched what was possible for a USB-connected thumb drive
-- an indication that a Democratic insider likely downloaded the emails and thus that there was
no "hack" -- Binney was mocked as a "conspiracy theorist."
Even with the new disclosures
about deep-seated anti-Trump bias in text messages exchanged between two senior FBI
officials who played important early roles in the Russia-gate investigation, there is no
indication that Official Washington is willing to go back to the beginning and see how the
Russia-gate story might have been deceptively spun.
In a recently released Aug. 15, 2016 text message from Peter Strzok, a senior FBI
counterintelligence official, to his reputed lover, senior FBI lawyer Lisa Page, Strzok
referenced an apparent plan to keep Trump from getting elected before suggesting the need for
"an insurance policy" just in case he did. A serious investigation into Russia-gate might want
to know what these senior FBI officials had in mind.
But the Times and other big promoters of Russia-gate continue to dismiss doubters as
delusional or as covering up for Russia and/or Trump. By this point – more than a year
into this investigation – too many Important People have bought into the Russia-gate
narrative to consider the possibility that there may be little or nothing there, or even worse,
that it is the "insurance policy" that Strzok envisioned.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated
Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen
Narrative, either in print here or
as an e-book (from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
George Orwell was right, he was just a few decades ahead of his time. Non-government actors
in the United States, including Google, have learned an important lesson from the 2016 election
and we can pretty much assure ourselves that the next election will see significant massaging
when it comes to what we read and hear.
ranney , December 15, 2017 at 4:43 pm
Lately I've heard on PBS and other news shows that Russia "invaded Ukraine" and also
attacked Crimea and essentially stole the island back to Russia. I forget the exact words used
about Crimea but that was the gist. I have heard several times people on PBS using the the
words Russia "invaded Ukraine" to describe what happened there. Like the N.Y.T. PBS is supposed
to be the go to place for unbiased news and now they are blatantly lying to the public –
and have been lying certainly as far back as 2014, if not before.
It's very discouraging to know that there are so few places where one can go to get actual
facts. Consortium is one and, surprisingly RT is often another – at least RT tells us
about stuff going on in other parts of the world that we never hear about in the MSM. Boy! talk
about being an insular country! America is the most isolated country in the world when it comes
to knowledge about other lands. We go on about how narcissistic Trump is, but the fact is that
our whole government and our MSM is totally narcissistic and has been for quite a while –
all we think about is us- and our government is willing to kill and lay waste anyone or any
country that doesn't do exactly what we want, even when what we want is disasterous for not
only other countries, but also disasterous for our own country. We are so narcissistic that we
can't see it.
Padtie , December 15, 2017 at 6:09 pm
Well ranney, while I look at and read this site regularly, I gotta say that Trump is merely
a doppelgänger for our country's collective psyche. This country is off the rails in every
way possible. Yes, that includes those bad apples of the deep state AND compliant hamster
citizens who vote and are currently scurrying about on the wheel of capitalism in pursuit of
the Christmas Machine. All the hand wringing done on this web-site ain't gonna change any of
it.
Mr. Parry would do everyone justice by taking his excellent skills and expanding his writing
repertoire beyond Russia-gate. I'm seriously beginning to wonder what's up with him that he
repeatedly beats the same old sorry drum- like the MSM- only on the opposite side. It's getting
tiresome. How about proposing solutions to what ails us?
Sorry to ruin everyone's party.
Abe , December 15, 2017 at 4:46 pm
"major media outlets have made humiliating, breathtaking errors on the Trump-Russia story,
always in the same direction, toward the same political goals. Here is just a sample of
incredibly inflammatory claims that traveled all over the internet before having to be
corrected, walked back, or retracted -- often long after the initial false claims spread, and
where the corrections receive only a tiny fraction of the attention with which the initial
false stories are lavished:
– Russia hacked into the U.S. electric grid to deprive Americans of heat during winter
(Wash Post)
– An anonymous group (PropOrNot) documented how major U.S. political sites are Kremlin
agents (Wash Post)
– WikiLeaks has a long, documented relationship with Putin (Guardian)
– A secret server between Trump and a Russian bank has been discovered (Slate)
– RT hacked C-SPAN and caused disruption in its broadcast (Fortune)
– Russians hacked into a Ukrainian artillery app (Crowdstrike)
– Russians attempted to hack elections systems in 21 states (multiple news outlets,
echoing Homeland Security)
– Links have been found between Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian investment
fund under investigation (CNN) [ ]
"But what it means most of all is that when media outlets are responsible for such grave and
consequential errors as the spectacle we witnessed yesterday, they have to take responsibility
for it by offering transparency and accountability. In this case, that can't mean hiding behind
P.R. and lawyer silence and waiting for this to just all blow away.
"At minimum, these networks -- CNN, MSNBC, and CBS -- have to either identify who purposely
fed them this blatantly false information or explain how it's possible that 'multiple sources'
all got the same information wrong in innocence and good faith. Until they do that, their cries
and protests the next time they're attacked as 'Fake News' should fall on deaf ears, since the
real author of those attacks -- the reason those attacks resonate -- is themselves and their
own conduct."
Hilary gave it away, as the (anti-democratic)"Democratic Party" gave it all away and has
been doing it for decades.
Whereas the right has wisely (for it's purposes) built long term infrastructure of funded think
tanks, media, fundamentalist ideologists, etc; the Democratic Establishment has dumped on it's
base at practically ever turn, never really showing actual support for it's public community,
and has joined with the right to destroy all attempt to build an actual peoples' political
party.
I just turned 84 and have witnessed the ever-growing weakness and right-leaning of the Party"
since I was a little kid and have seen it only become more disgustingly lame and disingenuous
in all these years since, with extended travel, 20-year military service and work around the
world, in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East.
And we are largely to blame, being humans and Americans, we sit back-busy with our lives, and
neglect our responsibilities to our fellow man and community.
Get up off your ass, guys
JOHN L. OPPERMAN , December 15, 2017 at 4:53 pm
I must add, the so-called Party has quite consistently ACTIVELY fought against labor,
consumers, t's own loyal public.
Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 5:10 pm
Among the many great comments posted here I find in your resume Mr Opperman a ton of
experienced words worth listening too. In fact, it is people such as yourself that I feel our
younger generation should be learning from. Your traveling, and working for the government has
given you an insight that many of us do not have, nor will get since we are all not like you
John. So keep posting, and tell us what you think America should do next, as we go forward.
Thank you for your remarks, they are respected for what you have earned. Joe
Padtie , December 15, 2017 at 6:11 pm
Thanks for this post John.
Skip Scott , December 15, 2017 at 4:52 pm
In the end, this whole RussiaGate scandal may actually have a positive impact if it can be
proven that it was a conspiracy cooked up by the "Deep State" as insurance in case of a Trump
victory. If this is proven and actually becomes common knowledge, people like Brennan and
Clapper, and their MSM mouthpieces, will never be trusted again. Though heads didn't roll after
the exposure of the "weapons of mass destruction" lie, this one might tip the balance. Their
argument that the "intelligence was mistaken" won't fly, as RussiaGate is so obviously a
purposely constructed lie. It would be even greater if this led to a counter-investigation
where all the perps were exposed and publicly prosecuted, and the Intelligence Agencies were
"broken into 1000 pieces." Maybe while they were at it, they could get around to auditing the
Pentagon. I like to dream big.
My hope is that websites like this one can continue to build an audience and speak truth to
power now that net neutrality appears dead.
Joe Tedesky , December 15, 2017 at 4:59 pm
Funny how the NYT will try and make hay with a collection of various Russian disjointed ads
on Facebook with an investment of $44,000.xx out weights the 4.9 billion dollars worth of free
media coverage the MSM gave Trump through the whole 2016 presidential campaign, and nobody
thinks nothing of it. If there was any type of collusion to help Trump win the White House then
why not question this free media give away?
As a side note, should we investigate Jared Kushner and Michael Flynn for colluding with
Israel?
Senator Mark Warner plays the part of the inquisitor well, and for that reason he has loss
my respect, if he ever had it to begin with. Enough of covering up for Hillary's guilt complex
to why she loss the election. Someone should just tell her, that even though she has done
everything there is in her power to take Putin out of power, that her presidential loss is all
on her. Putin didn't need to interfere, since by Hillary just being Hillary was enough to keep
her out of reach of the Oval Office.
I hope that in the coming year, that by some stroke of luck, that William Binney will get
the praise he deserves. We need more people like Binney working in our government, and without
him we all are left vulnerable to the many who don't represent our citizen values. I thought
the MSM's treatment of William Binney was disgraceful, to say the least.
Lastly, I would only hope that whoever it was that started this Russia-Gate nonsense would
be revealed, but hope doesn't prosecute anyone, but knowledge at least allows you too see who
and what is behind the curtain.
Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:46 pm
" a collection of various Russian disjointed ads on Facebook with an investment of
$44,000.xx .."
Yes , it was amazing that Russia was able to control our election so cheaply , but really ,
that was nothing. They swung the UK Brexit vote with Facebook ads costing them only 97 cents !
:
This whole Russiagate fraud could serve to awake a lot of Americans, if they would only look
into it. You are not going to find a more blatant example of fake news by every major media,
and also those supposedly upstanding Senators and Representatives, FBI and Justice Icons. If
the public ignores opportunities to wake up to this outrageous scam being perpetrated on them
now, there is little hope that they ever will. I try to get my friends interested in
researching Russiagate, and a few of them have become curious and started asking questions
– that's how awakening begins .
Marko , December 15, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Agreed. It's important to have just one or a few topics at most that you can suggest to your
uninformed friends as being worthy of their own time to research , with the ultimate goal of "
waking up ". Russia-gate is perfect. The Syrian War is another good one.
Pablo Diablo , December 15, 2017 at 5:55 pm
Also, a convenient excuse to discredit the "Special Counsel" Mueller investigation. "Witch
hunt", "Fake News", which will come in handy if any real crimes are exposed. Reminds me of one
criminal mob taking over territory from the current bunch of criminals.
Sad to see. The definition of "government" is that it represents "the people". Yet, I wonder if
any government on Earth does represent "the people".
Brendan , December 15, 2017 at 6:02 pm
In spite of all the blatant lies that it publishes, the New York Times is still highly
regarded by the political and media establishment, even in Europe.
In Hamburg on 3 December 2017, the NYT was awarded the Marion Dönhoff Prize for
International Understanding and Reconciliation. In his presentation speech, the German
President Frank-Walter Steinmeier described the NYT as an authority of enlightenment and a
beacon of reason.
In fact, none of the media outlets that were recently declared foreign agents by Moscow is
either independent or a newspaper. That list consists only of the US government financed VOA
and RFE/RL and a number of websites and broadcasters that VOA and RFE/RL control.
Apart from that, the Russian "foreign agents" list is just a direct retaliation against
Washington for doing exactly the same thing to RT and Sputnik, who were forced to register as
foreign agents. Apparently the "freedom of the press" isn't so important when it applies to
Russian media organisations working in the USA.
"... Russia-gate serves the Democrat party because it side-steps their collusion with Israel. It serves the Republicans less because of collusion with corporations in the effort to destroy democracy and the social programs of the New Deal, and Russia is in on it. What is the purpose of all this collusion? It's to bring Iran, North Korea, and Cuba into the New World Order. ..."
"... Washington Post today, in another story relying solely on anonymous sources, breathlessly states: "Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White House. The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the personal insecurities of the president -- and his refusal to accept what even many in his administration regard as objective reality -- have impaired the government's response to a national security threat." Objective reality? ..."
"... The "Red Herring" is a major distraction to what is fundamentally a very corrupted election process from within and non-action by both parties to pursue fair, transparent "un-rigged" elections, taking the money out of the elections, getting rid of the electoral college, ranked voting and more. ..."
"... "Israel's collusion with the Trump presidential transition team points to more than just Trump, Kushner, and Flynn violating the Logan Act of 1799, an arcane law prohibiting American citizens from engaging in their own foreign policies. By convincing Trump, Kushner, and Flynn that Obama was behind Resolution 2443, Israel co-opted the Trump transition team to do its bidding. The Logan Act is immaterial when Trump, Kushner, Flynn, and others committed virtual treason against their own country to further the political aims of Israel. ..."
"... "The phoniest aspect of so-called 'Russiagate' is that the political scandal involving Trump, Kushner, Flynn, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Stephen Miller, and others hardly involves the Russian government. Instead, Eastern European-Israeli oligarchs, along with their thousands of offshore shell corporations located in places as far-ranging as the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Jersey to the Marshall Islands and Seychelles, along with well-placed American agents-of-influence for Israel, are front-and-center in the scandal that now threatens to bring down the Trump administration." ..."
"... Mueller Names Trump's Foreign 'Colluding' Power: Israel By Wayne Madsen ..."
"... Liars always become very touchy when confronted with their falsehoods. They will inevitably attack there accusers with more lies to make them look bad. This is a fundamental reflex all liars respond to critics with. "I'm not lying, you are!" Those who want to believe the real liar love this response, because it gives them an excuse not to investigate if the accuser may be right. Then they can just turn on the accuser and blame them for false accusation – without the slightest proof, of course. ..."
Russia-gate serves the Democrat party because it side-steps their collusion with Israel.
It serves the Republicans less because of collusion with corporations in the effort to
destroy democracy and the social programs of the New Deal, and Russia is in on it. What is
the purpose of all this collusion? It's to bring Iran, North Korea, and Cuba into the New
World Order.
China and Russia are only nominal adversaries in the world economy. They also
want to impoverish the majority of the world's population even at the cost of enriching some
individuals to the point of becoming gods. In a sense, this is what liberals have wanted, to
level the field that the poor people of the world exist on.
jaycee , December 14, 2017 at 2:26 pm
Washington Post today, in another story relying solely on anonymous sources, breathlessly
states: "Nearly a year into his presidency, Trump continues to reject the evidence that
Russia waged an assault on a pillar of American democracy and supported his run for the White
House. The result is without obvious parallel in U.S. history, a situation in which the
personal insecurities of the president -- and his refusal to accept what even many in his
administration regard as objective reality -- have impaired the government's response to a
national security threat." Objective reality?
Colleen O'Brien , December 14, 2017 at 2:30 pm
All the layers of deceit, denial and distraction bode ill for the Democratic Party and
MSM. Thank you Robert Parry for standing up to all this disinformation & propaganda. The
"Red Herring" is a major distraction to what is fundamentally a very corrupted election
process from within and non-action by both parties to pursue fair, transparent "un-rigged"
elections, taking the money out of the elections, getting rid of the electoral college,
ranked voting and more.
Reforming our election process is the most important issue because what we have now and
what came before is because of the money which owns the politicians and who no longer
represent the American People! Nothing will change until we fix this!
Abe , December 14, 2017 at 4:32 pm
"Israel's collusion with the Trump presidential transition team points to more than
just Trump, Kushner, and Flynn violating the Logan Act of 1799, an arcane law prohibiting
American citizens from engaging in their own foreign policies. By convincing Trump, Kushner,
and Flynn that Obama was behind Resolution 2443, Israel co-opted the Trump transition team to
do its bidding. The Logan Act is immaterial when Trump, Kushner, Flynn, and others committed
virtual treason against their own country to further the political aims of Israel.
"There has never been a successful prosecution under the Logan Act and likely there will
never be one. However, those who possessed access to classified information – Trump,
Kushner, Flynn, Haley, and others – who were simultaneously taking orders from Israel
on matters of US national security, could be found guilty of violating the US Espionage Act.
Israel's 'Greek Chorus' of supporters in the US news media and Congress brought up the Logan
Act to minimize the damage caused by collusion between Israel's skink-like ambassador to the
UN Danny Danon, Netanyahu, Kushner, Flynn, Trump, and Haley to kill the resolution. If the
Logan Act had any enforcement teeth, it would have been used a long time ago to indict George
Soros, Sheldon Adelson, Haim Saban, Paul Singer, and other pro-Israeli billionaire
influence-peddlers, who represent the interests of other nations and engage in their own
foreign policies.
"The phoniest aspect of so-called 'Russiagate' is that the political scandal involving
Trump, Kushner, Flynn, former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort, Trump advisers Steve
Bannon and Stephen Miller, and others hardly involves the Russian government. Instead,
Eastern European-Israeli oligarchs, along with their thousands of offshore shell corporations
located in places as far-ranging as the British Virgin Islands and the Isle of Jersey to the
Marshall Islands and Seychelles, along with well-placed American agents-of-influence for
Israel, are front-and-center in the scandal that now threatens to bring down the Trump
administration."
Liars always become very touchy when confronted with their falsehoods. They will
inevitably attack there accusers with more lies to make them look bad. This is a fundamental
reflex all liars respond to critics with. "I'm not lying, you are!" Those who want to believe
the real liar love this response, because it gives them an excuse not to investigate if the
accuser may be right. Then they can just turn on the accuser and blame them for false
accusation – without the slightest proof, of course.
Mild -ly - Facetious , December 14, 2017 at 5:29 pm
"... More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections. ..."
"... What is he going to prison for, again? Colluding with Israel? ..."
"... The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate. Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the tax changes good for the rich against the many. I think the people are being played. ..."
"... In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars. ..."
"... True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated. ..."
"... Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys. How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces. ..."
"... Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of us". ..."
"... If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during the transition period, he's got nothing. ..."
"... It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend, Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup. So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation. ..."
"... The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ... ..."
"... Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its 'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US intelligence community. ..."
"... Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its 800 overseas bases are to defend US interests. ..."
"... Wow this is like becoming McCarthy Era 2.0. I'm just waiting for the show trials of all these so-called colluders. ..."
"... the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of an incoming official ..."
"... "The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality. But not charging Hillary for email server. Another technicality. That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI and the Dems" ..."
"... It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this unashamed scale in ancient Rome? ..."
"... So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops. How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn flipped? Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's. ..."
"... You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on ..."
"... Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts. ..."
"... If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for "collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks. ..."
"... Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount to global belligerence. ..."
"... Clinton lied under oath ..."
"... The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used... plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office... ..."
"... Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries. Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more decisive? ..."
"... The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese? ..."
"... The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security council. ..."
"... And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect. What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements. The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics. ..."
"... In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal - but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it. ..."
"... All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed. Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December, after the election. ..."
"... So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't get your hopes up that this is going anywhere ..."
"... Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference. ..."
"... America like all governments are narcissistic, they will cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to see how it works. ..."
"... The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a 'rival', most people should be able to agree on that ..."
"... Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia, ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them as a threat. ..."
Mueller will have to thread very carefully because he is maneuvering on a very politically
charged terrain. And one cannot refrain from comparing the current situation with the many
free passes the democrats were handed over by the FBI, the Department of Justice and the
media which make the US look like a banana republic.
The mind blowing fact that Clinton sat
with the Attorney General on the tarmac of the Phoenix airport "to chit-chat" and not to
discuss the investigation on Clinton's very wife that was being overseen by the same AG,
leaves one flabbergasted.
And the fact that Comey essentially said that Clinton's behaviour,
tantamount in his own words to extreme recklessness, did not warrant prosecution was just
inconceivable.
Don't forget that Trump has nearly 50 M gun-toting followers on Tweeter and
that he would not hesitate to appeal to them were he to feel threatened by what he could
conceive as a judicial Coup d'Etat. The respect for the institutions in the USA has never
been so low.
...a judge would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant a trial.
Actually, in the U.S. a grand jury would decide if the evidence was sufficient to warrant
formal charges leading to a trial. There is also the possibility that Mueller has uncovered
both Federal and NY State offenses, so charges could be brought against Kushner at either
level. Mueller has been sharing information from his investigation with the NY Attorney
General's Office. Trump could pardon a federal offense, but has no jurisdiction to pardon
charges brought against Kushner by the State of NY.
I watched RT for 24 months before the US election. They favoured Bernie Saunders strongly
before he lost to Hilary. Then they ran hustings for the smaller US parties, eg Greens, and
the Libertarians , which could definitely be seen as an interference in the US election, but
which as far as I know, was never mentioned in the US. They were anti Hilary but not pro
Trump. And indeed, their strong anti capitalist bias would have made such support unlikely.
What's he lying about? More like he's denying the story peddled by the Democrats in some vain attempt at reducing his
legitimacy over smashing Hillary in the elections.
Obama and Hillary met hundreds of foreign officials. Were they colluding as well?
The most anger in the media against the POTUS seems to be directed against Russia gate.
Time and energy is wasted on conjecture, most 'probables will not stand in a court of law. This media hysteria deflects from the destruction of the affordable healthcare act and the
tax changes good for the rich against the many.
I think the people are being played.
In the 1990s and 2000s a large section of the American establishment was effectively
bought off by people like Prince Bandar. These are the ones that are determined that the
anti-Russian policy then instigated be continued, even at the cost of slandering the current
President's son-in-law. The irony is that in the meantime an effective regime change has
taken place in Saudi and Bandar's bandits are mostly locked up behind bars.
It's all too funny.
True, and not just hypocrisy either. This has to be seen in the context of a war, cold for
now, on Russia - with China, via Iran and NK, next in line. Dangerous times, as a militarily
formidable empire in economic decline looks set to take us all out. For the few who think and
resist the dominant narrative - and are thereby routinely called out as 'kremlin trolls' - it
is dismaying how easily folk are manipulated.
Your points are valid but, alas, factual truths
are routinely trumped (!) by powerful mythology. Fact is, despite an appalling record since
WW2, Washington and its pet institutions - IMF/World Bank/WTO - are still seen as good guys.
How? Because (a) all western states have traded foreign policy independence for favoured
status in Washington, (b) English as global lingua franca means American soft propaganda is
lapped up across the world via its entertainment industry, and (c) all 'our' media are owned
by billionaire corps or as with BBC/Graun, subject to government intimidation/market forces.
Truth is, DRT is not some horrifically new entity. (Let's not forget how HRC's 'no fly
zone' for Syria promised to take us into WW3, nor her demented "we came, we saw, he died - ha
ha" response to Gaddafi's sodomisation by knife blade, and more importantly to Libya's
descent into hell.) As John Pilger noted, "the obsession with Trump the man – not Trump
as symptom and caricature of an enduring system – beckons great danger for all of
us".
I missed Jill Abramson's column about all the meetings the Obama administration held -- quite
openly -- with foreign governments during the transition period between his election and his
first inauguration.
But since she's been demonstrably and laughably wrong about predicting future political
events in the USA (see her entire body of work during the 2016 election campaign), why should
she start making sense now?
It's completely possible, of course, that some as-yet-to-be-revealed piece of evidence
will prove collusion -- before the election and by candidate Trump -- with the
Russians. But the Flynn testimony certainly isn't it. All the heavy breathing and hysteria is
simply a sign of how the media, yet again, always gravitates toward the news it wishes were
true, rather than what really is true. If all Meuller has is Flynn and the Russians during
the transition period, he's got nothing.
Flynn was charged with far more serious crimes which were all dropped and he was left with a
charge that if he spends any time in prison, it will be about 6 months. Now, you could say
for him to agree to that, he must have some juicy info - and he probably does - but what that
juicy info is is just speculation. And if we are speculating, then maybe what he traded it
for was nothing to do with Trump? After all, one of the charges against him was failing to
register as a foreign agent on behalf of Turkey.
It's alleged that Turkey wanted Flynn to
extradite Gullen for his alleged involvement in Turkey's failed coup. Just this weekend,
Turkey have issued an arrest warrant for a former CIA officer in relation to the failed coup.
So, IF the CIA were behind the failed coup and Flynn knows this - well, a good way to silence
him would be to charge him with some serious crimes and then offer to drop them in return for
his silence. But, like your theory, it's just speculation.
Still no evidence of Russian collusion in Trump campaign BEFORE the election...... whatever
happened after being president elect is not impeachable unless it would be after taking
office.
The secret deep state security forces haven't been this diminished since Carter cleared
the stables in the 70's - they fought back and stopped his second term ...
Seeing how the case against Trump and Flynn is based on 'probable' and not hard proof its
'probable that the anti Trump campaign is directed from within the murky enclaves of the US
intelligence community.
Trumps presidency could have the capability of galvanising a powerful resistance against
the 2 party state for 'real change, like affordable healthcare and affordable education for
ALL its people. But no its not happening, Trump is attacked on probables and undisclosed
sources. A year has passed and nothing has been revealed.
Hatred against Trump deflects the anger, see the system works the US is still a
democracy. Well it isn't, its a sick oligarchy run by the mega rich who own the media, 90% is
owned by 5 corporations. Americans are fed the lie that their vast military empire with its
800 overseas bases are to defend US interests.
Well their not, their only function is, is to spend tax dollars that otherwise would be
spent on education, health, infrastructure, things that would 'really' benefit America.
Disagree, well go ahead and accuse me of being a conspiracy nut-job, in the meantime China is
by peaceful means getting the mining rights in Africa, Australia, deals that matter.
The tax legislation for the few against the many is deflected by the anti-Trump hysteria
based on conjecture and not proof.
Crimea was and is Russian.
Your mask is slipping, Vlad .
Your ignorance is showing.
I have no connection to Russia what so ever.
Crimea was legally ceded to Russia over 200 years ago, by the Ottomans to Catherine the
Great.
Russia has never relinquished control.
What the criminal organization the USSR did under Ukrainian expat Khrushchev, is
irrelevant.
And as Putin said , any agreement about respecting Ukraine's territorial integrity was
negated when the USA and the EU fomented and financed a rebellion and revolution.
Australia, Canada, and S. Africa supply the lion's share of gold bullion that London survives
on. And the best uranium in the world. All sorts of other precious commodities as well.
If you're not toeing the line on US foreign policies religiously, the Yanks will drop you.
You are selectively choosing to refer to this one instance, but even here Obama
administration were still in charge - so not very legal, was it.
I am "selectively choosing to refer to this one instance" because that's all Flynn has
been charged with. Oh, and it is totally legal for a member of the incoming administration to
start talks with their foreign counterparts. Here's a quote from an op-ed piece in The Hill
from a law professor at Washington University.
the interest of (Russian Ambassador) Kislyak in determining the position of the new
administration on sanctions is not unheard of in Washington, or necessarily untoward to
raise with one of the incoming national security advisers. Ambassadors are supposed to
seek changes in policies and often seek to influence officials in the early stages of
administrations before policies are established. Flynn's suggestion that the Russians wait
as the Trump administration unfolded its new policies is a fairly standard response of
an incoming official .
"The problem is charging Flynn for lying. A technicality.
But not charging Hillary for email server.
Another technicality.
That's all the public will see if no collusion proved, and will ruin credibility of the FBI
and the Dems"
It's not just collusion is it, what about the rampant, naked nepotism, last seen on this
unashamed scale in ancient Rome?
He then pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN
security council.
So he lobbied for Israel not Russia then? Whoops.
How does the author even know where Mueller's probe is heading, and which way Flynn
flipped?
Flynn worked much longer for the Obama administration than for Trump's.
You can easily impeach Trump for bombing Syria's military airfield, which is by UN definition
war crime of war aggression, starting war without the Congress approval; and doing so by
supporting false flag of AQ, is support of terrorists and so on
Oh you can't do it, of course, it was so - so presidential to bomb another country and it
is just old habit and no war declaration, if country is too weak to bomb you back. And you
love this exiting crazy balance of global nuclear annihilation too much, so you prefer
screaming Russia, Russia to keep it hot, for wonderful military contracts.
Oh, and I have to be supporter of Putin's oligarchy with dreams of great tsars of Russia,
if I care about humans survival on this planet and have very bad opinion about suicidal fools
playing this stupid games.
If the US wanted to do itself a massive favour it should shine the spotlight on Robert
Mueller, the man now in charge of investigating the President of these United States for
"collusion" with Russia and possible "obstruction of justice" himself obstructed a
congressional investigation into the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Dealing with western backed coups on its own doorstep and being the only country actually to
be legally fighting in Syria - a war that directly threatens its security - does not amount
to global belligerence.
The logan act is a dead law no one will be prosecuted for a act that has never been used...
plus the president elect can talk to any foreign leader he or she wishes to use and even talk
deals even if a current president for 2 months is still in office...
I am not sure any level of scandal will make much difference to Trump or his supporters.
They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing will
have an impact.
So far the level of scandal is below that of Whitewater/Lewinsky, and that was a very low
level indeed. What "evidence of wrongdoing" is there? Nothing, that's why they charged Flynn
with lying to investigators. It's important to keep in mind that the he did nor lie about
actual crimes. Perhaps that's going to change as the investigation proceeds, but so far this
is nothing more than a partisan lawfare fishing expedition.
Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the
US.
And your evidence for this is what exactly? As for countries trying to influence elections in other countries, I'm all for it
particularly when one of the candidates is murderous, arrogant and stupid.
BTW, in Honduras after supporting a coup against the democratically-elected president
because he sought a referendum on allowing presidents to serve two terms, you'd think the
United States would interfere when his non-democratically-elected replacement used a "packed"
supreme court to change the constitution to allow presidents to serve more than one term to
at least stop him stealing an election as he is now doing/has done. But they didn't and that
hasn't stopped the United States whining that Evo Morales is being undemocratic by trying to
extend the number of terms he can serve.
Because they attempted to covertly influence a general election in order to weaken the
US.
Should all countries which try to influence elections be treated as enemies? Where do you
set the threshold? If we go by the actual evidence, Russia seems to have bought some Facebook
ads and was allegedly involved in exposing HRC's meddling with the Democratic primaries.
Compare that to the influence that countries like Israel and the Gulf Arabs exert on American
politics and elections. Are you seriously claiming that Russia's influence is bigger or more
decisive?
The goal of weakening the US is also highly debatable. Accepting for a moment that Russia
tried to tip the balance in favor of Trump, would America be stronger if it were engaged more
actively in Syria and Ukraine? Is there a specific example where Trump's administration
weakened the American position to the advantage of Russia? And how is the sustained
anti-Russian information warfare helping anyone but the Chinese?
The clues that Kushner has been pulling the strings on Russia are everywhere... He then
pushed Flynn hard to try to turn Russia around on an anti-Israel vote by the UN security
council.
And Russia didn't turn, so hardly a clue that Kushner was pulling strings with any effect.
What this clue does suggest however, is that Israel pressured/colluded with the Trump Team to
undermine the Obama administrations policy towards a UN resolution on illegal settlements.
The elephant in the room is Israels influence on US politics.
Can someone please actually tell us what Flynn/Jared/Trump is supposed to have done.
In relation to the "lying" charge - In December, Flynn (in his role as incoming National
Security Advisor) was told to talk to the Russians by Kushner (in his role as incoming
special advisor). In these conversations, Flynn told the Russians to be patient regarding
sanctions as things may change when Trump becomes President. All of this is totally legal and
is what EVERY new adminstration does. Flynn had his phoned tapped by the FBI so they knew he
had talked to the Russian about sanctions - they also knew the conversation was totally legal
- but when they asked him about it, he said he didn't discuss sanctions. So Flynn is being
charged about lying about something that was totally legal for him to do. That's it.
These days "US influence" seems to consist of bombing Middle Eastern countries back to the
bronze age for reasons that defy easy logic.
Anything that reduces that kind of influence would be welcome.
The Logan Act (18 U.S.C.A. § 953 [1948]) is a single federal statute making it a crime
for a citizen to confer with foreign governments against the interests of the United States.
Specifically, it prohibits citizens from negotiating with other nations on behalf of the
United States without authorization. https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Logan+Act
All those thinking this is the beginning of the end of Trump are going to be disappointed.
Just look at the charges so far. Manafort has been charged with money laundering and not
registering as a foreign agent - however, both of those charges pre-date him working for
Trump. Flynn has been charged with lying to the FBI about speaking to the Russians - even
though him speaking to the Russians in his role as National Security Advisor to the
President-elect was not only totally legal, it was the norm. And this took place in December,
after the election.
So the 2 main players have been charged with things that have nothing to do with the Trump
campaign, and lets not forget the point of the investigation is to find out if Trump's
campaign colluded with the Russians to win the election. Manafort's charges related to before
working for the Trump campaign whilst Flynn's came after Trump won the Presidency, neither of
which have anything to do with the election. As much as I wish Trump wasn't President, don't
get your hopes up that this is going anywhere.
Gross hypocrisy on the US governments side. They have, since WW2 interfered with other
countries elections, invaded, and killed millions worldwide, and are still doing so. Where
were the FBI investigations then? Non existent. US politicians and the military hierarchy are
completely immune from any prosecutions when it comes down to overseas illegal interference.
But now this Russian debacle, and at last they've woken up, because another country had the
temerity to turn the tables on them. And I think if this was Bush or Obama we would never
have heard a thing about it. Everybody hates the Dotard, because he's an obese dick with an
IQ to match.
Nothing will happen to Trump, It's all bollocks. You've all watched too many Spielberg films,
bad guys win, and they win most of the time.
Trump is the real face of America, America like all governments are narcissistic, they will
cheat, steal, kill, if it benefits them. It's called national interest, and it's number one
on any leader's job list. Watch fog of war with Robert McNamara, fantastic and terrifying to
see how it works.
when American presidents were rational, well balanced with progressive views we had....
decent American healthcare? Equality of opportunity? Gun laws that made it safe to
walk the streets?
Say who, what an a where now????????? Since when has the US EVER had any of
the three things that you mentioned???
If ever, then it was a loooooong time before the pilgrim fathers ever landed.
The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most
Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a
'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.
That is the bottom line, yes. People view the world through west = good and Russia = bad,
while both make economic and political decisions that serve the interests of their people
respectively. Ultimately, I think people are scared that the West's monopoly on global
influence is slipping, to as you said, a rival.
You are right that calling Russia the US enemy needs justification, but these threads often
deteriorate into arguments of the yes it is/no it isn't variety.
Gallup have been polling Americans for the past couple of decades on this. The last time I
read about it a couple of years ago 70% of Americans had unfavourable views of Russia,
ranging from those who saw them as an enemy (a smaller amount) through to those who saw them
as a threat.
It's certain that their ideals and goals run counter to those generally held in the US in
many ways. But let's not forget that the US' ideals are often, if not generally, divergent
from their interests and US foreign policy since 1945 has been responsible for countless
deaths, perhaps more than Russia's.
The US has also been meddling in other countries elections for years, and doubtless most
Americans neither know or care about that! So it's perhaps it's best to simply term them a
'rival', most people should be able to agree on that.
How the liberals and the Democrats don't give a damm about the USA or the world's political
scene, just some endless 'sore loser' witch hunt.
So much could be achieved by the improving of relations with Russia.
Crimea was and is Russian.
Let Trump have a go as POTUS and then judge him.
He wants to befriend Putin and if done it would help solve Syrian, Nth Korean and other
global problems.
They simply see this as an elitist conspiracy and not amount of evidence of wrongdoing
will have an impact
Whereas if it's a Democrat in the spotlight, these same dipshits see it as an
élitist cover-up and no lack of evidence of wrongdoing will have an impact. If
anything, lack of evidence is evidence of cover-up which is therefore proof of evidence.
These cynical games they play with veracity and human honesty are a very pure form of
evil.
"... Greenwald's lamenting of the US media's lack of transparency and accountability is touchingly high-minded, but it is also naive. These people are not in the business of informing their viewers; they are in the business of delivering their viewers to a preestablished agenda set by powerful and wealthy people. Until Mr. Greenwald understands this, he will continue to feel disappointment and dissonance. ..."
"... The massive deception operation that goes by the name of "US media" will continue so long as the audience tolerates it, which is probably indefinitely. Over and over again, I have showed members of that audience that they are being lied to. Their reaction is always the same: anger with me for discomforting them. The audience does not watch the US media in order to be informed, they watch the media in order to be comforted, and the media know this and exploit this. This show will run for a long, long time. ..."
"... Well put. Lying is not a special occasion for the US media. It's an everyday occurrence, whereas telling the truth is quite rare. As a person who was born and grew up in Ukraine and has lots of relatives and acquaintances all over that disintegrating country, I can testify that 80% of the reports in the US media about Ukraine since 2014 were blatant lies, whereas in the remaining 20% truth was twisted beyond recognition. ..."
"... There is a minute of breaking news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then what news is up next for 2 minutes. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news. ..."
FRIDAY WAS ONE of the most embarrassing days for the U.S. media in quite a long time. The humiliation orgy was kicked off by CNN,
with MSNBC and CBS close behind, with countless pundits, commentators and operatives joining the party throughout the day. By the
end of the day, it was clear that several of the nation's largest and most influential news outlets had spread an explosive but completely
false news story to millions of people, while refusing to provide any explanation of how it happened.
The spectacle began on Friday morning at 11 a.m. EST, when the Most Trusted Name in News™ spent 12 straight minutes on air flamboyantly
hyping an exclusive bombshell report that seemed to prove that WikiLeaks, last September, had secretly offered the Trump campaign,
even Donald Trump himself, special access to the DNC emails before they were published on the internet. As CNN sees the
world, this would prove collusion between the Trump family and WikiLeaks and, more importantly, between Trump and Russia, since the
U.S. intelligence community regards WikiLeaks as an "arm of Russian intelligence," and therefore , so does the U.S. media.
This entire revelation was based on an email
which CNN strongly implied it had exclusively obtained and had in its possession. The email was sent by someone named "Michael J.
Erickson" -- someone nobody had heard of previously and whom CNN could not identify -- to Donald Trump, Jr., offering a decryption
key and access to DNC emails that WikiLeaks had "uploaded." The email was a smoking gun, in CNN's extremely excited mind, because
it was dated September 4 -- 10 days before WikiLeaks began promoting access to those emails online -- and thus proved that
the Trump family was being offered special, unique access to the DNC archive: likely by WikiLeaks and the Kremlin.
It's impossible to convey with words what a spectacularly devastating scoop CNN believed it had, so it's necessary to watch it
for yourself to see the tone of excitement, breathlessness and gravity the network conveyed as they clearly believed they were delivering
a near-fatal blow on the Trump/Russia collusion story:
There was just one small problem with this story: it was fundamentally false, in the most embarrassing way possible. Hours after
CNN broadcast its story -- and then hyped it over and over and over -- the Washington Post
reported that CNN got the key fact of the story wrong.
The email was not dated September 4, as CNN claimed, but rather September 14 -- which means it was sent after WikiLeaks
had already published access to the DNC emails online. Thus, rather than offering some sort of special access to Trump, "Michael
J. Erickson" was simply some random person from the public encouraging the Trump family to look at the publicly available
DNC emails that WikiLeaks -- as everyone by then already knew -- had
publicly promoted . In other words, the
email was the exact opposite of what CNN presented it as being.
The real cartoon network if you ask me. Once people blow it, their public character becomes that of a cartoon character. Franken,
Conyers, Hillary, Weinstein and the Weiners. Why is CNN and liberal media exempt? Oh. They aren't.
Kudos to Greenwald for calling the US media out on this occasion, but in reality the US media humiliates itself weekly, if not
daily, if not hourly, with its false reports, poorly concealed agenda and generally propagandistic approach to everything.
Greenwald's lamenting of the US media's lack of transparency and accountability is touchingly high-minded, but it is also
naive. These people are not in the business of informing their viewers; they are in the business of delivering their viewers to
a preestablished agenda set by powerful and wealthy people. Until Mr. Greenwald understands this, he will continue to feel disappointment
and dissonance.
The massive deception operation that goes by the name of "US media" will continue so long as the audience tolerates it,
which is probably indefinitely. Over and over again, I have showed members of that audience that they are being lied to. Their
reaction is always the same: anger with me for discomforting them. The audience does not watch the US media in order to be informed,
they watch the media in order to be comforted, and the media know this and exploit this. This show will run for a long, long time.
Yes. Most of our fellows are willfully ignorant cowards. I also believe that many cope by turning on Confederate statues, getting
worked up over bathrooms, etc.
Well put. Lying is not a special occasion for the US media. It's an everyday occurrence, whereas telling the truth is quite
rare. As a person who was born and grew up in Ukraine and has lots of relatives and acquaintances all over that disintegrating
country, I can testify that 80% of the reports in the US media about Ukraine since 2014 were blatant lies, whereas in the remaining
20% truth was twisted beyond recognition.
The media has become a "fifth column" of the government and is not to be trusted.
To our advantage, we now have the internet, which gives the ability for ordinary citizens to be real "journalists", quite often
getting and reporting the story TRUTHFULLY before the mainstream media.
In fact, there are calls by "mainstream media" to "license" journalists, in an attempt to keep these "citizen journalists" out
twenty years ago, any journalist suggesting such a scheme would have been thrown out, but nowadays
But do they really watch the TV? The news shows are terrible for getting a coherent message across.
There is a minute of breaking news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then what news is
up next for 2 minutes. Then 3 minutes of ads. Then a minute of news.
In an hour of a news show its probably 15 minutes, broken into 1 minute segments of actual news. The rest is just flashing
lights and ads and what news will be next. Except for PBS and NPR of course which are just liberal propaganda. Democracy Now,
Charlie Rose, Travis Smiley have fewer ads, but who can listen to them or look at them? I'd like to smash Charley Rose' sanctimonious
face. And Amy Goodman, why women shouldn't be allowed to vote or hold elected or appointed office.
It's so chopped up with ads and what's up next I don't see how anyone could have the patience to sit through it and figure
out what they are blathering about.
It's so chopped up with ads and what's up next I don't see how anyone could have the patience to sit through it and figure
out what they are blathering about.
I agree but I'm not sure it would take patience so much as total lack of self respect as well as a hopeless amount of gullibility.
Speaking of ads
for I knew nothing of the facts. I read no newspaper now but Ritchie's, and in that chiefly the advertisements, for they
contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper.
Thomas Jefferson, letter to To Nathaniel Macon
Monticello, January 12, 1819
Three years later Russia is still standing... Still to a neoliberal state and not to be a USA vassal is a pipe dream. The system
is Washington-centric by design. but what is the alternative in unclear. Russia is still a neoliberal state and Putin is not eternal.
Contrary to Putin's vision, a neoliberal state can't be sovereign, it can only be a vassal of Washington. As soon as a neoliberal
state shows some independence it became a "rogue state" and punishment via financial system (and for smaller states via military actions)
will follow. Dominance in finance sphere gives the USA the ability to punish Russia to almost any extent they wish without significant
possibilities of retaliation, unless formal block of Russia and China is created.\
Russia can only retaliate in selected carefully chosen "weak spots". NGOs, media, the USA food companies (Coca-cola, junk food,
chickens, etc), financial and consulting firms (and first of all Big Three, closely connected with the USA government). Not so far nine
got under Russian government knife.
Notable quotes:
"... Yep, how dare the Russkies retaliate, when they ought to come begging on their knees to be allowed to do what the grand master in DC wants them to do ..."
"... Russians are using "trade as a geopolitical tool," warns a Washington think tank. Russia engaging in trade war – How despicable! ..."
"... And next Russans claim that "Fruit shipments from the EU have recently contained Oriental fruit moths " ..."
"... "It's not unusual for Russia to find something wrong when they have a political reason to do so". ..."
"... No word on whether his tongue immediately turned black and started to smoke, then fell out of his mouth. It's not unusual for the United States to apply sanctions when they have a political reason to do so, and fuck-all else. ..."
"... I was wrong about Rosoboronexport. It is EXEMPT from the list of sanctions. No doubt some of the deals (titanium) are critical for the US's own MIC. ..."
"... The baying audience of FOX-friends might be stoked at the idea of economic war with Russia, but the cold-eyed businessmen are likely to be unenthused at best ..."
Found at zerohedge, a US reaction on Russia's reaction to the sanctions:
"Assuming that they take this action, it would be blatant protectionism," Clayton Yeutter, a U.S. Trade Representative
under President Ronald Reagan, said in a phone interview. "There is little or no legitimacy to their complaints."
Russians are using "trade as a geopolitical tool," warns a Washington think tank. Russia engaging in trade war – How despicable!
First Russkies pretend to find antibiotics in McDonalds "cheese" products. But everybody knows the cheese cannot possibly contain
antibiotics, because it's not even real cheese! (it's a kind of edible plastic substance )
And next Russans claim that "Fruit shipments from the EU have recently contained Oriental fruit moths "
That's a lie too.
Everybody knows that if you eat your Polish quinces with a runcible spoon, then they will not contain any measurable amounts
of moth larvae.
"It's not unusual for Russia to find something wrong when they have a political reason to do so".
No word on whether his tongue immediately turned black and started to smoke, then fell out of his mouth. It's not unusual for
the United States to apply sanctions when they have a political reason to do so, and fuck-all else.
I was wrong about Rosoboronexport. It is EXEMPT from the list of sanctions. No doubt some of the deals (titanium) are critical
for the US's own MIC. Put Kadyrov or someone on the board and force Congress to slit Boeing's throat.
Or hire him to the company that produces rolled titanium alloys for Boeing and Airbus. A shot across the bow to say that Western
leaders will have to be standing in front of their populations as they crash their economies. Russia won't do it for them.
Excellent reasoning. The baying audience of FOX-friends might be stoked at the idea of economic war with Russia, but the cold-eyed
businessmen are likely to be unenthused at best. This is a great plan for achieving leverage cheaply and easily, and the
U.S. government would be left 'splaining to Boeing that they had to lay off a couple of thousand workers because a bad man was
appointed to the board of their major supplier.
The west is locked into its lame sanctions groove, and too proud to back down.
This might be
the big shootout from which only one currency will walk away.
"... straight from the lips of Pavlo Munchkin. The west will not react to Saakashvili's detention , and considers it to be an internal Ukrainian matter. So Kiev can make up whatever wild charges it wants, and Uncle Sam will not ride to the rescue. Saakashvili has apparently outlived his usefulness. ..."
"... Well, indeed, it looks like the collective West decided to just say to poor, ageing, clumsy Mishiko "I know thee not, old man!". The ritualistic spitting and trampling of Saakasvhili effigy in the Freest Press in the World (Western one) will commence soon enough. But before that – a quick reminder of what they were saying, before re-alignment of the winds, blowing from Washington's ObCom. ..."
"... "AFTER the Maidan revolution and the start of the Russian war against Ukraine in 2014, Western policy had two aims: to halt and punish Russian aggression and to help Ukraine become a democratic state governed by the rule of law. America imposed sanctions on Russia, ordered the president, Petro Poroshenko, to establish an anti-corruption force and sent Joe Biden, then vice-president, on repeated visits to insist on fighting graft. The EU imposed sanctions on Russia, and made support for civil-society and the rule of law a linchpin of the association agreement it signed with Ukraine in 2014. ..."
"... In that light, the news out of Ukraine over the past few weeks has been dire. The country's prosecutor-general has disrupted investigations by its National Anti-corruption Bureau, with the apparent consent of Mr Poroshenko. The interior minister has intervened to protect his son from similar scrutiny. Officers in the security service, the SBU, have tried to arrest Mikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president turned Ukrainian corruption-fighter, only to be driven back by protesters. Prosecutors are targeting anti-corruption activists; the army, interior-ministry troops and private militias work at cross-purposes, answering to different politicians or oligarchs . Mr Poroshenko's government has been seriously weakened. ..."
"... "To some Europeans and Americans, this picture suggests that their efforts to persuade Ukraine to turn over a new leaf were always doomed to fail. That is a misreading. In fact, the recent chaos in Ukraine comes in part because in the past year, especially since the inauguration of President Donald Trump, Europe and America have eased the pressure. If they do not restore their commitment to defending anti-corruption reforms, Ukraine risks sinking back into the morass from which it tried to extricate itself with Maidan. ..."
"... Ukraine's grubby politicians and oligarchs have tried to frustrate Western aims without openly defying them (see article ). Partly as a result, policy under Mr Trump has lost its focus on fighting graft. Kurt Volker, the American envoy to Ukraine, works on external security; America may soon sell the country lethal weapons for the first time. But when the State Department complains about corruption, it is ignored -- because (unlike Mr Biden) the White House offers it no support. As for the EU, few believe it would jeopardise its association agreement with Ukraine for the sake of the rule of law. So, the country's elite no longer fears attacking investigators and activists." ..."
"... "Lay off the pay-offs ..."
"... If they succeed in ending the attempts to fight graft, it will be a disaster for Ukraine -- and a step back for Europe and America, too. The country is the focal point of the West's conflict with Russia. Weak and divided, it is vulnerable to Russian encroachment, especially if Vladimir Putin decides he needs to fire up patriotic Russian voters. Chaos would also buttress Mr Putin's claim that the West's aims in Ukraine are purely anti-Russian and have nothing to do with democracy or the rule of law. All this would undermine the rules-based global order, with consequences in the South China Sea and elsewhere. ..."
"... Now that Ukraine is defying complaints by America's State Department and the EU's foreign-policy arm, it is vital that America and Europe use every tool at their disposal to support corruption-fighters in Kiev. The EU should make plain that the benefits of the association pact depend on progress against graft; America should attach the same conditions to arms sales. Prosecutors in Western capitals should investigate the laundering of ill-gotten Ukrainian wealth. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity should not involve tolerance for the lack of integrity among its politicians." ..."
Al Jazeera English
Published on 9 Dec 2017
SUBSCRIBE 1.7M
He was the president of Georgia, then a governor in Ukraine, and now he's in jail on hunger
strike.
The arrest, and re-arrest, of Mikhail Saakashvii in Kiev has stirred protests which evoke
memories of the Ukrainian revolution three years ago.
Saakashvili's supporters say his detention is based on lies and they want him let go. They
already freed him once earlier this week – from a police van.
Tuesday's dramatic scenes saw a former president being dragged across a roof. Police arrested him for allegedly conspiring with Russia against the Ukrainian state. Saakashvili then escaped custody, before police tracked him down again on Friday. The former Georgian leader says his arrest is politically motivated.
But is it really?
Presenter: Sami Zeidan
Guests:
Alexander Korman – Former Head of the Public Council and First Deputy Chairman of
Public Council to the Ministry of Foreign Relations of Ukraine.
Sergey Markov – Former Russian MP & spokesman for President Vladimir Putin.
Lilit Gevorgyan – IHS Global Insigh tanalyst and principal economist covering Russia
& Ukraine.
Aaaaand there you have it, folks, straight from the lips of Pavlo Munchkin. The west will not react to
Saakashvili's detention , and considers it to be an internal Ukrainian matter. So Kiev
can make up whatever wild charges it wants, and Uncle Sam will not ride to the rescue.
Saakashvili has apparently outlived his usefulness.
I don't really feel sorry for him, because I've always thought he was a twat and his
preening over being the golden child of Washington was sickening. In fact, he probably
deserves whatever happens to him, although I expect the west will make some kind of private
deal to get him out on the promise that he will stay out of Ukraine. Where he will go then is
anyone's guess, since he is a stateless person with no citizenship. But it is significant to
note how much weight Ukraine still swings with the west, even though Europe is getting
impatient about its hamfisted anti-corruption charade. Kiev just said "Stay out of it", and
the west retired smartly.
I think you will agree that is hardly a climate in which Poroshenko will feel moved to do
anything much about corruption beyond making a lot of noise and promises.
Well, indeed, it looks like the collective West decided to just say to poor, ageing, clumsy
Mishiko "I know
thee not, old man!". The ritualistic spitting and trampling of Saakasvhili effigy in the
Freest Press in the World (Western one) will commence soon enough. But before that – a
quick reminder of what they were saying, before re-alignment of the winds, blowing from
Washington's ObCom.
Ukraine is a mess? Nooooo waaaaaay! Are you sure? Tell me more!
"AFTER the Maidan revolution and the start of the Russian war against Ukraine in 2014,
Western policy had two aims: to halt and punish Russian aggression and to help Ukraine become
a democratic state governed by the rule of law. America imposed sanctions on Russia, ordered
the president, Petro Poroshenko, to establish an anti-corruption force and sent Joe Biden,
then vice-president, on repeated visits to insist on fighting graft. The EU imposed sanctions
on Russia, and made support for civil-society and the rule of law a linchpin of the
association agreement it signed with Ukraine in 2014.
In that light, the news out of Ukraine over the past few weeks has been dire. The
country's prosecutor-general has disrupted investigations by its National Anti-corruption
Bureau, with the apparent consent of Mr Poroshenko. The interior minister has intervened to
protect his son from similar scrutiny. Officers in the security service, the SBU, have tried
to arrest Mikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president turned Ukrainian
corruption-fighter, only to be driven back by protesters. Prosecutors are targeting
anti-corruption activists; the army, interior-ministry troops and private militias work at
cross-purposes, answering to different politicians or oligarchs . Mr Poroshenko's government
has been seriously weakened. "
That's important part – keep it mind. But here comes the "meat" of the article! Good
flunkies of Ed Lukas has found the answer to the eternal question "Whom to blame?" as
pertains to the Ukraine and its current woes! Are you ready? Here it is:
"To some Europeans and Americans, this picture suggests that their efforts to persuade
Ukraine to turn over a new leaf were always doomed to fail. That is a misreading. In fact,
the recent chaos in Ukraine comes in part because in the past year, especially since the
inauguration of President Donald Trump, Europe and America have eased the pressure. If they
do not restore their commitment to defending anti-corruption reforms, Ukraine risks sinking
back into the morass from which it tried to extricate itself with Maidan.
Ukraine's grubby politicians and oligarchs have tried to frustrate Western aims
without openly defying them (see
article ). Partly as a result, policy under Mr Trump has lost its focus on fighting
graft. Kurt Volker, the American envoy to Ukraine, works on external security; America may
soon sell the country lethal weapons for the first time. But when the State Department
complains about corruption, it is ignored -- because (unlike Mr Biden) the White House offers
it no support. As for the EU, few believe it would jeopardise its association agreement with
Ukraine for the sake of the rule of law. So, the country's elite no longer fears attacking
investigators and activists."
Trump! It is all Trump's fault! Because – surely! – under the watch of the
President of Peace B. Obama and gramps Biden no dodgy things ever happened in the Ukraine,
noooope! Biden (and his son) gonna defend this PO like lions! This also welcomes nasty
question – aren't Mr. Poroshenko himself an oligarch, whose personal wealth skyrocketed
since his election? And maybe – I'm not insisting, no-no – having lots of cash
stashed in "Panama Papers Fund" precludes him from actually fighting corruption – and
not, you know, the election of Trump? Heresy, I know!
But the articles goes from strength to strength, boldly skipping to the "What to do?"
section. The solution is as brilliant and though-over as everything else in there:
"Lay off the pay-offs
If they succeed in ending the attempts to fight graft, it will be a disaster for Ukraine --
and a step back for Europe and America, too. The country is the focal point of the West's
conflict with Russia. Weak and divided, it is vulnerable to Russian encroachment, especially
if Vladimir Putin decides he needs to fire up patriotic Russian voters. Chaos would also
buttress Mr Putin's claim that the West's aims in Ukraine are purely anti-Russian and have
nothing to do with democracy or the rule of law. All this would undermine the rules-based
global order, with consequences in the South China Sea and elsewhere.
Now that Ukraine is defying complaints by America's State Department and the EU's
foreign-policy arm, it is vital that America and Europe use every tool at their disposal to
support corruption-fighters in Kiev. The EU should make plain that the benefits of the
association pact depend on progress against graft; America should attach the same conditions
to arms sales. Prosecutors in Western capitals should investigate the laundering of
ill-gotten Ukrainian wealth. Support for Ukraine's territorial integrity should not involve
tolerance for the lack of integrity among its politicians."
Nope. Your Russophobia is high (and you yourself dear Western elites are also high most of
the time when it comes to Russia) that you will allow this unholy corrupt mess to persist.
Because, really, you are not interested in "democracy" and "open society". Not at the prize
of people electing someone, whose strings you cannot pull.
At the same time – this is "big: and "respectable" The Economist we are talking
about. They smell the fire from the yet unlit tires of new Maidan. They are afraid .
They know, that their "Operation: SHOWCASE" of turning Ukraine into a "democratic alternative
to Russia" failed. They are in denial.
The obligatory "rules-based global order" makes a tardy but welcome cameo appearance like an
aging well-loved Thespian milking the audience for a final burst of applause before
retirement. Great stuff!
Ukrainians voted for a return of the "criminal regime" of Yanukovich
01:24 – 10.12.2017
Ninety-two percent of the audience of the Ukrainian TV channel "NewsOne" voted for the
return of the regime of former President Viktor Yanukovych, reports the news portal
"Politnavigator".
In Saturday's broadcast, viewers were asked to choose one of two options to answer the
question "For whom would you vote: for the last criminal power or the current one?". Out of
46,686 people only eight per cent supported the policy of the current president, Petro
Poroshenko.
On 23 October, the Centre for social studies "Sofia" published the results of a poll in
which 79 percent of the population in varying degrees did not approve of Poroshenko being
head of state: the answer "fully approve of the President" was chosen by only 1.6
percent.
On October 17, the Prosecutor General of the Ukraine, Yuriy Lutsenko, accused former
president Viktor Yanukovich of embezzling assets worth $40 billion. According to the head of
the supervisory authority, this was comparable with the annual budget of the country.
Yanukovych was President of the Ukraine from 2010 to 2014. After a violent regime
change by means of the Euromaidan mass protests in Kiev and other cities, he left the
country.
In the Ukraine, there have been initiated several criminal cases made against the
former head of state and his property on the territory of the country has been
seized.
There's a useful lesson there for someone: more than 90% – arguably; we have no way to
know how scientific or representative this poll was – of the population does not
support the current government, in a country that has considerable and recent practical
experience of revolution. Yet the current government prevails with complete impunity, and
even flaunts its contempt for accountability. How can these two realities coexist? Is it
possible the violent nationalist element wields disproportionate influence, despite all the
quacking about its low support in the polls and Russian exaggeration of its extremist
beliefs?
Can't vouch for the entire web site but this was interesting:
Baiting is the act of deliberately annoying or provoking someone to extreme emotion.
When a person baits another, they are deliberately taunting in order to provoke a response
from the offender's attack.
If you are a fisherman, it might be fun but if you're the fish -- or worse a worm
squirming on a hook, being used to entice a predator to amuse? It's simply not as much fun
for people who are the victims of any form of bait and switch attack.
Truly believing the world as they know it revolves around them, they tend to
symptomatically behave in ways that are compulsively self-promoting, grandiose, illogical,
irrational, egocentric, and grandiose.
Every social interaction is seen as a competition of sorts, with the Narcissist
behaving as if their distorted, self-deluded version of any fact, story, or reality is
somehow rooted in divine truth (rather than being recognized as a symptom of psychiatric
dysfunction and outright gaslighting tales and lies).
The condition -- a personality TYPE classification, rather than an actual diagnosis of
illness (per se) -- tends to be rooted in cultural nurturing, for the most part.
People all over the world are protesting against globalisation, inequality and
selfishness. Democratic liberalism is supposed to solve these problems, but liberalism and
its big brother neoliberalism are actually the cause of these problems. Furthermore, once a
country has adopted neoliberalist policies it is very hard for it ever to reject them.
"... BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election. ..."
"... A lesson of the 2016 campaign was that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with three decades of neoliberal policies that have fabulously enriched the top tier of Americans and debased a huge majority of everyone else. The population has likewise grown tired of the elite's senseless wars to expand their own interests, which they to conflate with the entire country's interests. ..."
"... Careerist journalists readily acquiesce in this suppression of news to maintain their jobs, their status and their lifestyles. Meanwhile, a growing body of poorly paid freelancers compete for the few remaining decent-paying gigs for which they must report from the viewpoint of the mainstream news organizations and their wealthy owners. ..."
"... Their solution has been to brand the content of the Russian television network, RT, as "propaganda" since it presents facts and viewpoints that most Americans have been kept from hearing. ..."
"... Now, these American transgressions are projected exclusively onto Moscow. There's also a measure of self-reverence in this for "successful" people, like some journalists, with a stake in an establishment that underpins the elite, demonstrating how wonderfully democratic they are compared to those ogres in Russia. ..."
"... The Jan. 6 intelligence assessment on alleged Russian election meddling is a good example of this. A third of its content is an attack on RT for "undermining American democracy" by reporting on Occupy Wall Street, the protest over the Dakota pipeline and, of all things, holding a "third party candidate debates," at a time when 71% of American millennials say they want a third party. ..."
"... According to the Jan. 6 assessment, RT's offenses include reporting that "the US two-party system does not represent the views of at least one-third of the population and is a 'sham.'" RT also "highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties." In other words, reporting newsworthy events and giving third-party candidates a voice undermines democracy. ..."
"... The assessment also says all this amounts to "a Kremlin-directed campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political protest," but those protests by are against privileges of the wealthy and the well-connected, a status quo that the intelligence agencies were in essence created to protect. ..."
"... There are also deeper reasons why Russia is being targeted. The Russia-gate story fits neatly into a geopolitical strategy that long predates the 2016 election. Since Wall Street and the U.S. government lost the dominant position in Russia that existed under the pliable President Boris Yeltsin, the strategy has been to put pressure on getting rid of Putin to restore a U.S. friendly leader in Moscow. There is substance to Russia's concerns about American designs for "regime change" in the Kremlin. ..."
"... But the "deranking" isn't only aimed at Russian sites; Google algorithms also are taking aim at independent news sites that don't follow the mainstream herd – and thus are accused of spreading Russian or other "propaganda" if they question the dominant Western narratives on, say, the Ukraine crisis or the war in Syria. A number of alternative websites have begun reporting a sharp fall-off of traffic directed to their sites from Google's search engines. ..."
"... the European Union is spending €3.8 million to counter Russian "propaganda." It is targeting Eurosceptic politicians who repeat what they hear on Russian media. ..."
"... Less prominent figures are targeted too. John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who blew the whistle on torture and was jailed for it, was kicked off a panel in Europe on Nov. 10 by a Bernie Sanders supporter who refused to appear with Kiriakou because he co-hosts a show on Radio Sputnik . ..."
"... At the end of November, Reporters Without Borders, an organization supposedly devoted to press freedom, tried to kick journalist Vanessa Beeley off a panel in Geneva to prevent her from presenting evidence that the White Helmets, a group that sells itself as a rescue organization inside rebel-controlled territory in Syria, has ties to Al Qaeda. The Swiss Press Club, which hosted the event, resisted the pressure and let Beeley speak. ..."
"... Much of this spreading mania and intensifying censorship traces back to Russia-gate. Yet, it remains remarkable that the corporate media has failed so far to prove any significant Russian interference in the U.S. election at all. Nor have the intelligence agencies, Congressional investigations and special prosecutor Robert Mueller. His criminal charges so far have been for financial crimes and lying to federal authorities on topics unrelated to any "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russians to "hack" Democratic emails ..."
"... As journalist Yasha Levine tweeted: "So the country that influenced US policy through Michael Flynn is Israel, not Russia. But Flynn did try to influence Russia, not the other way around. Ha-ha. This is the smoking gun? What a farce." ..."
"... There's also the question of how significant the release of those emails was anyway. They did provide evidence that the DNC tilted the primary campaign in favor of Clinton over Sanders; they exposed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street, which she was trying to hide from the voters; and they revealed some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation and its foreign donations. But – even if the Russians were involved in providing that information to the American people – those issues were not considered decisive in the campaign. ..."
"... As for vaguer concerns about some Russian group "probably" buying $100,000 in ads, mostly after Americans had voted, as a factor in swaying a $6 billion election, it is too silly to contemplate. ..."
"... RT and Sputnik 's reach in the U.S. is minuscule compared to Fox News , which slammed Clinton throughout the campaign, or for that matter, MSNBC, CNN and other mainstream news outlets, which often expressed open disdain for Republican Donald Trump but also gave extensive coverage to issues such as the security concerns about Clinton's private email server. ..."
"... Without convincing evidence, I remain a Russia-gate skeptic. I am not defending Russia. Russia can defend itself. However, amid the growing censorship and the dangerous new McCarthyism, I am trying to defend America -- from itself. ..."
"... Lauria's article is an excellent review of the hydra-headed MSM perversion of political journalism in this era of the PATRIOT Act, with special focus on 2016-2017. With one small exception that still is worth noting. Namely the inclusion of "North Koreans" along with Palestinians, Russians and Iranians as those whose viewpoints are never represented in the Western media. ..."
"... Without factual support James calls Putin an organized criminal. US NGO staff who have actually dealt with Putin characterize him as a strict legalist. In fact, Putin's incorruptibility is what drives CIA up the wall. Ask any upper-echelon spook. Putin's cupidity deficit short-circuits CIA's go-to subversion method, massive bribes. Putin has an uneasy relationship with the kleptocrats CIA installed while their puppet Yeltsin staggered around blind drunk. But Putin has materially curbed kleptocratic corruption and subversion. Russians appreciate that. ..."
"... It seems to be the same in Germany. The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, he died maybe a year ago, he worked long for the prestigious newspaper FAZ, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, wrote a book about bought journalism. His explanation for the disappearence of discussion sites with newspapers is that the journalists discovered that the reactions got far more attention than the articles. Very annoying, of course. With us here, Follow The Money, and The Post Online behave as childish as German newspapers. ..."
"... And if that same central bank would give out loans -- that never get repaid -- to the same ethnic gangsters that would then would use those loans to buy up over 90% of the host nations MSM outlets to forever ensure that a steady drip, drip, drip of propaganda went into the host nation's residents, ever so slowly turning them into mindless sheep always bleating for more wars to help the ethnic gangsters steal their way to an Eretz state? ..."
"... Reminds me of a contemporary Russian joke: "Everything communists told us about socialism turned out to be a lie. However, everything they told us about capitalism is perfectly true". ..."
Under increasing pressure from a population angry about endless wars and the transfer of wealth to the one percent, American
plutocrats are defending themselves by suppressing critical news in the corporate media they own. But as that news emerges on
RT and dissident websites, they've resorted to the brazen move of censorship, which is rapidly spreading in the U.S. and Europe.
I know because I was a victim of it.
At the end of October, I wrote an
article for Consortium
News about the Democratic National Committee and Hillary Clinton's campaign paying for unvetted opposition research that became
the basis for much of the disputed story about Russia allegedly interfering in the 2016 presidential election.
The piece showed that the Democrats' two paid-for sources that have engendered belief in Russia-gate are at best shaky. First
was former British spy Christopher Steele's
largely unverified
dossier of second- and third-hand opposition research portraying Donald Trump as something of a Russian Manchurian candidate.
And the second was CrowdStrike, an anti-Putin private company, examining the DNC's computer server to dubiously claim discovery
of a Russian "hack." CrowdStrike, it was later discovered, had used
faulty software
it was later forced to
rewrite
. The company was hired after the DNC refused to allow the FBI to look at the server.
My piece also described the dangerous consequences of partisan Democratic faith in Russia-gate: a sharp increase in geopolitical
tensions between nuclear-armed Russia and the U.S., and a New McCarthyism that is spreading fear -- especially in academia, journalism
and civil rights organizations -- about questioning the enforced orthodoxy of Russia's alleged guilt.
After the article appeared at Consortium News , I tried to penetrate the mainstream by then publishing a version of the
article on the HuffPost, which was
rebranded from the Huffington Post in April this year by new management. As a contributor to the site since February 2006,
I am trusted by HuffPost editors to post my stories directly online. However, within 24 hours of publication on Nov. 4, HuffPost
editors retracted
the article without any explanation.
Like the word "fascism," "censorship" is an over-used and mis-used accusation, and I usually avoid using it. But without any explanation,
I could only conclude that the decision to retract was political, not editorial.
I am non-partisan as I oppose both major parties for failing to represent millions of Americans' interests. I follow facts where
they lead. In this case, the facts led to an understanding that the Jan. 6 FBI/NSA/CIA intelligence
"assessment" on alleged Russian election interference,
prepared by what then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called "hand-picked" analysts, was based substantially on unvetted
opposition research and speculation, not serious intelligence work.
The assessment even made the point that the analysts were not asserting that the alleged Russian interference was a fact. The
report contained this disclaimer: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments
are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
Under deadline pressure on Jan. 6, Scott Shane of The New York Times instinctively wrote what many readers of the report
must have been thinking: "What is missing from the public report is what many Americans most eagerly anticipated: hard evidence to
back up the agencies' claims that the Russian government engineered the election attack. Instead, the message from the agencies essentially
amounts to 'trust us.'"
Yet, after the Jan. 6 report was published, leading Democrats asserted falsely that the "assessment" represented the consensus
judgment of all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies – not just the views of "hand-picked" analysts from three – and much of the U.S. mainstream
media began treating the allegations of Russian "hacking" as fact, not as an uncertain conclusion denied by both the Russian government
and WikiLeaks, which insists that it did not get the two batches of Democratic emails from the Russian government.
Yet, because of the oft-repeated "17 intelligence agencies" canard and the mainstream media's over-hyped reporting, the public
impression has built up that the accusations against Russia are indisputable. If you ask a Russia-gate believer today what their
faith is based on, they will invariably point to the Jan. 6 assessment and mock anyone who still expresses any doubt.
For instance, an unnamed former CIA officer
toldThe Intercept
last month, "You've got all these intelligence agencies saying the Russians did the hack. To deny that is like coming out with the
theory that the Japanese didn't bomb Pearl Harbor."
That the supposedly dissident Intercept would use this quote is instructive about how unbalanced the media's reporting
on Russia-gate has been. We have film of Japanese planes attacking Pearl Harbor and American ships burning – and we have eyewitness
accounts of thousands of U.S. soldiers and sailors. Yet, on Russia-gate, we have only the opinions of "hand-picked" intelligence
officials who themselves admit their opinions aren't fact. No serious editor would allow a self-interested and unnamed source to
equate Russia-gate and Pearl Harbor in print.
In this atmosphere, it was easy for HuffPost editors to hear complaints from readers and blithely ban my story. But before
it was pulled, 125 people had shared it. Ray McGovern, a former CIA analyst, then took up my cause, being the first to write about
the HuffPost censorship on his
blog. McGovern included a link to a .pdf file that I captured of the
censored
HuffPost story. It has since been republished on numerous
otherwebsites.
Journalist Max Blumenthal tweeted about
it. British filmmaker and writer Tariq Ali
posted it on
his Facebook page. Ron Paul and Daniel McAdams
interviewed
me at length about the censorship on their TV program. ZeroHedge wrote a widely shared
piece and someone actually took the time, 27 minutes and 13 seconds to be exact, to read the entire article on YouTube. I began
a petition to HuffPost
's Polgreen to either explain the retraction or restore the article. It has gained more than 2,000 signatures so far. If a serious
fact-check analysis was made of my article, it must exist and can and should be produced.
Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined to take
up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil Liberties Union
rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely to defend individuals
in such situations on principle, not preference.
In terms of their responsibilities for defending journalism and protecting civil liberties, their personal opinions about whether
Russia-gate is real or not are irrelevant. The point is whether a journalist has the right to publish an article skeptical of it.
I worry that amid the irrational fear spreading about Russia that concerns about careers and funding are behind these decisions.
One online publication decidedly took the HuffPost's side. Steven Perlberg, a media reporter for BuzzFeed, asked
the HuffPost why they retracted my article. While ignoring me, the editors issued a statement to BuzzFeed saying that
"Mr. Lauria's self-published" piece was "later flagged by readers, and after deciding that the post contained multiple factually
inaccurate or misleading claims, our editors removed the post per our contributor terms of use." Those terms include retraction for
"any reason," including, apparently, censorship.
Perlberg posted the HuffPost statement
on Twitter. I asked him if he inquired of the editors what those "multiple" errors and "misleading claims" were. I asked him to contact
me to get my side of the story. Perlberg totally ignored me. He wrote nothing about the matter. He apparently believed the HuffPost
and that was that. In this way, he acquiesced with the censorship.
BuzzFeed , of course, is the sensationalist outlet that irresponsibly published the Steele dossier in full, even though
the accusations – not just about Donald Trump but also many other individuals – weren't verified. Then on Nov. 14, BuzzFeed
reporter Jason Leopold wrote one of the most
ludicrous of a long line of fantastic Russia-gate stories, reporting that the Russian foreign ministry had sent money to Russian
consulates in the U.S. "to finance the election campaign of 2016." The scoop generated some screaming headlines before it became
clear that the money was to pay for Russian citizens in the U.S. to vote in the 2016 Duma election.
That Russia-gate has reached this point, based on faith and not fact, was further illustrated by a Facebook exchange I had with
Gary Sick, an academic who served on the Ford and Carter national security staffs. When I pressed Sick for evidence of Russian interference,
he eventually replied: "If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck " When I told him that was a very low-bar for such serious
accusations, he angrily cut off debate.
When belief in a story becomes faith-based or is driven by intense self-interest, honest skeptics are pushed aside and trampled.
True-believers disdain facts that force them to think about what they believe. They won't waste time making a painstaking examination
of the facts or engage in a detailed debate even on something as important and dangerous as a new Cold War with Russia.
This is the most likely explanation for the HuffPost 's censorship: a visceral reaction to having their Russia-gate faith
challenged.
But the HuffPos t's action is hardly isolated. It is part of a rapidly growing landscape of censorship of news critical
of American corporate and political leaders who are trying to defend themselves from an increasingly angry population. It's a story
as old as civilization: a wealthy and powerful elite fending off popular unrest by trying to contain knowledge of how the elite gain
at the others' expense, at home and abroad.
A lesson of the 2016 campaign was that growing numbers of Americans are fed up with three decades of neoliberal policies that
have fabulously enriched the top tier of Americans and debased a huge majority of everyone else. The population has likewise grown
tired of the elite's senseless wars to expand their own interests, which they to conflate with the entire country's interests.
America's bipartisan rulers are threatened by popular discontent from both left and right. They were alarmed by the Bernie Sanders
insurgency and by Donald Trump's victory, even if Trump is now betraying the discontented masses who voted for him by advancing tax
and health insurance plans designed to further crush them and benefit the rich.
Trump's false campaign promises will only make the rulers' problem of controlling a restless population more difficult. Americans
are subjected to economic inequality greater than in the first Gilded Age. They are also subjected today to more war than in the
first Gilded Age, which led to the launch of American overseas empire. Today American rulers are engaged in multiple conflicts following
decades of post-World War II invasions and coups to expand their global interests.
People with wealth and power always seem to be nervous about losing both. So plutocrats use the concentrated media they own to
suppress news critical of their wars and domestic repression. For example, almost nothing was reported about militarized police forces
until the story broke out into the open in the Ferguson protests and now the story has been buried again.
Careerist journalists readily acquiesce in this suppression of news to maintain their jobs, their status and their lifestyles.
Meanwhile, a growing body of poorly paid freelancers compete for the few remaining decent-paying gigs for which they must report
from the viewpoint of the mainstream news organizations and their wealthy owners.
To operate in this media structure, most journalists know to excise out the historical context of America's wars of domination.
They know to uncritically accept American officials' bromides about spreading democracy, while hiding the real war aims.
Examples abound: America's
role in the Ukraine coup was denied or downplayed; a British parliamentary report exposing American lies that led to the destruction
of Libya was suppressed
; and most infamously, the media promoted the WMD hoax and the fable of "bringing democracy" to Iraq, leading to the illegal invasion
and devastation of that country. A recent example from November is a 60 Minutesreport on the Saudi
destruction of Yemen, conspicuously failing to mention America's crucial role in the carnage.
I've pitched numerous news stories critical of U.S. foreign policy to a major American newspaper that were rejected or changed
in the editorial process. One example is the declassified Defense Intelligence Agency
document of August 2012 that accurately predicted the rise of the Islamic State two years later.
The document, which I confirmed with a Pentagon spokesman, said the U.S. and its Turkish, European and Gulf Arab allies, were
supporting the establishment of a Salafist principality in eastern Syria to put pressure on the Syrian government, but the document
warned that this Salafist base could turn into an "Islamic State."
But such a story would undermine the U.S. government's "war on terrorism" narrative by revealing that the U.S.-backed strategy
actually was risking the expansion of jihadist-held territory in Syria. The story was twice rejected by my editors and to my knowledge
has never appeared in corporate media.
Another story rejected in June 2012, just a year into the Syrian war, was about Russia's motives in Syria being guided by a desire
to defeat the growing jihadist threat there. Corporate media wanted to keep the myth of Russia's "imperial" aims in Syria alive.
I had to publish the article
outside the U.S., in a South African daily newspaper.
In September 2015 at the U.N. General Assembly, Russian President Vladimir Putin
confirmed my story about
Russia's motives in Syria to stop jihadists from taking over. Putin invited the U.S. to join this effort as Moscow was about to launch
its military intervention at the invitation of the Syrian government. The Obama administration, still insisting on "regime change"
in Syria, refused. And the U.S. corporate media continued promoting the myth that Russia intervened to recapture its "imperial glory."
It was much easier to promote the "imperial" narrative than report Putin's clear
explanation to French TV channel TF1, which was not picked
up by American media.
"Remember what Libya or Iraq looked like before these countries and their organizations were destroyed as states by our Western
partners' forces?" Putin said. "These states showed no signs of terrorism. They were not a threat for Paris, for the Cote d'Azur,
for Belgium, for Russia, or for the United States. Now, they are the source of terrorist threats. Our goal is to prevent the same
from happening in Syria."
But don't take Putin's word for it. Then Secretary of State John Kerry knew why Russia intervened. In a
leaked audio conversation with Syrian opposition figures
in September 2016, Kerry said: "The reason Russia came in is because ISIL was getting stronger, Daesh was threatening the possibility
of going to Damascus, and that's why Russia came in because they didn't want a Daesh government and they supported Assad."
Kerry admitted that rather than seriously fight the Islamic State in Syria, the U.S. was ready to use its growing strength to
pressure Assad to resign, just as the DIA document that I was unable to report said it would. "We know that this was growing, we
were watching, we saw that Daesh was growing in strength, and we thought Assad was threatened. We thought, however, we could probably
manage that Assad might then negotiate, but instead of negotiating he got Putin to support him." Kerry's comment suggests that the
U.S. was willing to risk the Islamic State and its jihadist allies gaining power in order to force out Assad.
Where are independent-minded Western journalists to turn if their stories critical of the U.S. government and corporations are
suppressed? The imperative is to get these stories out – and Russian media has provided an opening. But this has presented a new
problem for the plutocracy. The suppression of critical news in their corporate-owned media is no longer working if it's seeping
out in Russian media and through dissident Western news sites.
Their solution has been to brand the content of the Russian television network, RT, as "propaganda" since it presents facts and
viewpoints that most Americans have been kept from hearing.
As a Russian-government-financed English-language news channel, RT also gives a Russian perspective on the news, the way CNN and
The New York Times give an American perspective and the BBC a British one. American mainstream journalists, from my experience,
arrogantly deny suppressing news and believe they present a universal perspective, rather than a narrow American view of the world.
The viewpoints of Iranians, Palestinians, Russians, North Koreans and others are never fully reported in the Western media although
the supposed mission of journalism is to help citizens understand a frighteningly complex world from multiple points of view. It's
impossible to do so without those voices included. Routinely or systematically shutting them out also dehumanizes people in those
countries, making it easier to gain popular support to go to war against them.
Russia is scapegoated by charging that RT or Sputnik are sowing divisions in the U.S. by focusing on issues like homelessness,
racism, or out-of-control militarized police forces, as if these divisive issues didn't already exist. The U.S. mainstream media
also seems to forget that the U.S. government has engaged in at least 70 years of interference in other countries' elections, foreign
invasions, coups, planting stories in foreign media and cyber-warfare, which Russian media crucially points out.
Now, these American transgressions are projected exclusively onto Moscow. There's also a measure of self-reverence in this for
"successful" people, like some journalists, with a stake in an establishment that underpins the elite, demonstrating how wonderfully
democratic they are compared to those ogres in Russia.
The overriding point about the "Russian propaganda" complaint is that when America's democratic institutions, including the press
and the electoral process, are crumbling under the weight of corruption that the American elites have created or maintained, someone
else needs to be blamed.
The Jan. 6 intelligence assessment on alleged Russian election meddling is a good example of this. A third of its content is an
attack on RT for "undermining American democracy" by reporting on Occupy Wall Street, the protest over the Dakota pipeline and, of
all things, holding a "third party candidate debates," at a time when 71% of American millennials
say they
want a third party.
According to the Jan. 6 assessment, RT's offenses include reporting that "the US two-party system does not represent the views
of at least one-third of the population and is a 'sham.'" RT also "highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and
civil liberties." In other words, reporting newsworthy events and giving third-party candidates a voice undermines democracy.
The assessment also says all this amounts to "a Kremlin-directed campaign to undermine faith in the US Government and fuel political
protest," but those protests by are against privileges of the wealthy and the well-connected, a status quo that the intelligence
agencies were in essence created to protect.
There are also deeper reasons why Russia is being targeted. The Russia-gate story fits neatly into a geopolitical strategy that
long predates the 2016 election. Since Wall Street and the U.S. government lost the dominant position in Russia that existed under
the pliable President Boris Yeltsin, the strategy has been to put pressure on getting rid of Putin to restore a U.S. friendly leader
in Moscow. There is substance
to Russia's concerns about American designs for "regime change" in the Kremlin.
Moscow sees an aggressive America expanding NATO and putting 30,000 NATO troops on its borders; trying to overthrow a secular
ally in Syria with terrorists who threaten Russia itself; backing a coup in Ukraine as a possible prelude to moves against Russia;
and using American NGOs to foment unrest inside Russia before they were forced to register as foreign agents.
The Constitution prohibits government from prior-restraint, or censorship, though such tactics were imposed, largely unchallenged,
during the two world wars. American newspapers voluntarily agreed to censor themselves in the Second World War before the government
dictated it.
In the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur said he didn't "desire to reestablish wartime censorship" and instead asked the press
for self-censorship. He largely got it until the papers began reporting American battlefield losses. On July 25, 1950, "the army
ordered that reporters were not allowed to publish 'unwarranted' criticism of command decisions, and that the army would be 'the
sole judge and jury' on what 'unwarranted' criticism entailed," according to a Yale University
study on military censorship.
After excellent on-the-ground reporting from Vietnam brought the war home to America, the military reacted by instituting, initially
in the first Gulf War, serious control of the press by "embedding" reporters from private media companies. They accepted the arrangement,
much as World War II newspapers censored themselves.
It is important to realize that the First Amendment does not apply to private companies, including the media. It is not illegal
for them to practice censorship. I never made a First Amendment argument against the HuffPost , for instance. However, under
pressure from Washington, even in peacetime, media companies can do the government's dirty work to censor or limit free speech for
the government.
In the past few weeks, we've seen an acceleration of attempts by corporations to inhibit Russian media in the U.S. Both Google
and Facebook, which dominate the Web with more than 50 percent of ad revenue, were at first resistant to government pressure to censor
"Russian propaganda." But they are coming around.
Eric Schmidt, executive chairman of Alphabet, Google's parent company,
said on Nov. 18 that Google would "derank" articles from RT and Sputnik in the Google searches, making the stories harder for
readers to find. The billionaire Schmidt claimed Russian information can be "repetitive, exploitative, false, [or] likely to have
been weaponized," he said. That is how factual news critical of U.S. corporate and political leadership is seen by them: as a weapon
threatening their rule.
"My own view is that these patterns can be detected, and that they can be taken down or deprioritized," Schmidt said. Though Google would essentially be hiding news produced by RT and Sputnik , Schmidt is sensitive to the charge of censorship,
even though there's nothing legally to stop him. "We don't want to ban the sites. That's not how we operate," Schmidt said cynically. "I am strongly not in favor of censorship.
I am very strongly in favor of ranking. It's what we do."
But the "deranking" isn't only aimed at Russian sites; Google algorithms also are taking aim at independent news sites that don't
follow the mainstream herd – and thus are accused of spreading Russian or other "propaganda" if they question the dominant Western
narratives on, say, the Ukraine crisis or the war in Syria. A number of alternative websites have begun reporting a sharp fall-off
of traffic directed to their sites from Google's search engines.
Responding to a deadline from Congress to act, Facebook on Nov. 22 announced that it would inform users if they have been "targeted"
by Russian "propaganda." Facebook's help center will tell users if they liked or shared ads allegedly from the St. Petersburg-based
Internet Research Agency, which supposedly bought $100,000 in ads over a two-year period, with more than half these ads coming after
the 2016 U.S. election and many not related to politics.
The $100,000 sum over two years compares to Facebook's $27 billion in annual revenue. Plus, Facebook only says it "believes" or
it's "likely" that the ads came from that firm, whose links to the Kremlin also have yet to be proved.
Facebook described the move as "part of our ongoing effort to protect our platforms and the people who use them from bad actors
who try to undermine our democracy." Congress wants more from Facebook, so it will not be surprising if users will eventually be
alerted to Russian media reports as "propaganda" in the future.
While the government can't openly shut down a news site, the Federal Communications Commission's
upcoming vote on whether to deregulate
the Internet by ending net neutrality will free private Internet companies in the U.S. to further marginalize Russian and dissident
websites by slowing them down and thus discouraging readers from viewing them.
Likewise, as the U.S. government doesn't want to be openly seen shutting down RT operations, it is working around the edges to
accomplish that.
After the Department of Justice forced, under threat of arrest, RT to register its employees as foreign agents under the Foreign
Agents Registration Act , State Department spokeswoman Heather Nuaert said that "FARA does not police the content of information
disseminated, does not limit the publication of information or advocacy materials, and does not restrict an organization's ability
to operate." She'd earlier said that registering would not "impact or affect the ability of them to report news and information.
We just have them register. It's as simple as that."
The day after Nuaert spoke the Congressional press office
stripped RT correspondents of their
Capitol Hill press passes, citing the FARA registration. "The rules of the Galleries state clearly that news credentials may not
be issued to any applicant employed 'by any foreign government or representative thereof.' Upon its registration as a foreign agent
under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA), RT Network became ineligible to hold news credentials," read the letter to RT.
But Russia-gate faithful ignore these aggressive moves and issue calls for even harsher action. After forcing RT to register,
Keir Giles, a Chatham House senior consulting fellow, acted as though it never happened. He said in a Council on Foreign Relations
Cyber Brief on Nov. 27: "Although the Trump administration seems unlikely to pursue action against Russian information operations,
there are steps the U.S. Congress and other governments should consider."
I commented on this development on RT America. It would
also have been good to have the State Department's Nuaert answer for this discrepancy about the claim that forced FARA registrations
would not affect news gathering when it already has. My criticism of RT is that they should be interviewing U.S. decision-makers
to hold them accountable, rather than mostly guests outside the power structure. The decision-makers could be called out on air if
they refuse to appear.
Western rulers' wariness about popular unrest can be seen in the extraordinary and scurrilous attack on the Canadian website
globalresearch.ca . It began with a chilling study by the North Atlantic
Treaty Organization into the relatively obscure website, followed by a vicious
hit piece
on Nov. 18 by the Globe and Mail, Canada's largest newspaper. The headline was: "How a Canadian website is being used to amplify
the Kremlin's view of the world."
"What once appeared to be a relatively harmless online refuge for conspiracy theorists is now seen by NATO's information warfare
specialists as a link in a concerted effort to undermine the credibility of mainstream Western media – as well as the North American
and European public's trust in government and public institutions," the Globe and Mail reported.
"Global Research is viewed by NATO's Strategic Communications Centre of Excellence – or
StratCom – as playing a
key accelerant role in helping popularize articles with little basis in fact that also happen to fit the narratives being pushed
by the Kremlin, in particular, and the Assad regime." The website never knew it had such powers. I've not agreed with everything I've read on the site. But it is a useful clearinghouse for alternative media. Numerous Consortium News articles are republished there, including a handful of mine. But the site's typical sharing and
reposting on the Internet is seen by NATO as a plot to undermine the Free World.
"It uses that reach to push not only its own opinion pieces, but 'news' reports from little-known websites that regularly carry
dubious or false information," the he Globe and Mail reported. " At times, the site's regular variety of international-affairs
stories is replaced with a flurry of items that bolster dubious reportage with a series of opinion pieces, promoted on social media
and retweeted and shared by active bots."
The newspaper continued, "'That way, they increase the Google ranking of the story and create the illusion of multi-source verification,'
said Donara Barojan, who does digital forensic research for [StratCom]. But she said she did not yet have proof that Global Research
is connected to any government."
This sort of smear is nothing more than a blatant attack on free speech by the most powerful military alliance in the world, based
on the unfounded conviction that Russia is a fundamental force for evil and that anyone who has contacts with Russia or shares even
a part of its multilateral world view is suspect.
Such tactics are spreading to Europe. La Repubblica newspaper in Italy wrote a similar hit piece against
L'Antidiplomatico, a dissident website. And the European Union is spending
€3.8 million to counter Russian "propaganda." It is targeting Eurosceptic politicians who repeat what they hear on Russian media.
High-profile individuals in the U.S. are also now in the crosshairs of the neo-McCarthyite witch hunt. On Nov. 25 The Washington
Post ran a nasty hit piece on Washington Capitals' hockey player Alex Ovechkin, one of the most revered sports figures in the
Washington area, simply because he, like
86 percent of other Russians , supports his president.
"Alex Ovechkin is one of Putin's biggest fans. The question is, why?" ran the headline. The story insidiously implied that Ovechkin
was a dupe of his own president, being used to set up a media campaign to support Putin, who is under fierce and relentless attack
in the United States where Ovechkin plays professional ice hockey.
"He has given an unwavering endorsement to a man who U.S. intelligence agencies say sanctioned Russian meddling in last year's
presidential election," write the Post reporters, once again showing their gullibility to U.S. intelligence agencies that have provided
no proof for their assertions (and even admit that they are not asserting their opinion as fact).
Less prominent figures are targeted too. John Kiriakou, a former CIA agent who blew the whistle on torture and was jailed for
it, was
kicked
off a panel in Europe on Nov. 10 by a Bernie Sanders supporter who refused to appear with Kiriakou because he co-hosts a show
on Radio Sputnik .
At the end of November, Reporters Without Borders, an organization supposedly devoted to press freedom, tried to kick journalist
Vanessa Beeley off a panel in Geneva to
prevent her from presenting evidence that the White Helmets, a group that sells itself as a rescue organization inside rebel-controlled
territory in Syria, has ties to Al Qaeda. The Swiss Press Club, which hosted the event, resisted the pressure and let Beeley speak.
But as a consequence the club director said its funding was slashed from the Swiss government.
Much of this spreading mania and intensifying censorship traces back to Russia-gate. Yet, it remains remarkable that the corporate
media has failed so far to prove any significant Russian interference in the U.S. election at all. Nor have the intelligence agencies,
Congressional investigations and special prosecutor Robert Mueller. His criminal charges so far have been for financial crimes and
lying to federal authorities on topics unrelated to any "collusion" between the Trump campaign and Russians to "hack" Democratic
emails.
There will likely be more indictments from Mueller, even perhaps a complaint about Trump committing obstruction of justice because
he said on TV that he fired Comey, in part, because of the "Russia thing." But Trump's clumsy reaction to the "scandal," which he
calls "fake news" and a "witch hunt," still is not proof that Putin and the Russians interfered in the U.S. election to achieve the
unlikely outcome of Trump's victory.
The Russia-gate faithful assured us to wait for the indictment of retired Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, briefly Trump's national security
adviser. But again there was nothing about pre-election "collusion," only charges that Flynn had lied to the FBI about conversations
with the Russian ambassador regarding policy matters during the presidential transition, i.e., after the election.
One of Flynn's conversations was about trying unsuccessfully to comply with an Israeli request to get Russia to block a United
Nations resolution censuring Israel's settlements on Palestinian land.
As journalist Yasha Levine tweeted: "So the country that influenced US policy through Michael Flynn is Israel, not Russia.
But Flynn did try to influence Russia, not the other way around. Ha-ha. This is the smoking gun? What a farce."
The media is becoming a victim of its own mania. In its zeal to push this story reporters are making a
huge number of amateurish mistakes on stories that are later corrected. Brian Ross of ABC News was
suspended for erroneously reporting that Trump had told Flynn to contact the Russians before the election, and not after.
There remain a number of key hurdles to prove the Russia-gate story. First, convincing evidence is needed that the Russian government
indeed did "hack" the Democratic emails, both those of the DNC and Clinton's campaign chairman John Podesta – and gave them to WikiLeaks.
Then it must be linked somehow to the Trump campaign. If it were a Russian hack it would have been an intelligence operation on a
need-to-know basis, and no one in the Trump team needed to know. It's not clear how any campaign member could have even helped with
an overseas hack or could have been an intermediary to WikiLeaks.
There's also the question of how significant the release of those emails was anyway. They did provide evidence that the DNC
tilted the primary campaign in favor of Clinton over Sanders; they exposed the contents of Clinton's paid speeches to Wall Street,
which she was trying to hide from the voters; and they revealed some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation and its foreign
donations. But – even if the Russians were involved in providing that information to the American people – those issues were not
considered decisive in the campaign.
Clinton principally pinned her loss on FBI Director James Comey for closing and then reopening the investigation into her
improper use of a private email server while Secretary of State. She also spread the blame to
Russia (repeating
the canard about "seventeen [U.S. intelligence] agencies, all in agreement"), Bernie Sanders, the inept DNC and other factors.
As for vaguer concerns about some Russian group "probably" buying $100,000 in ads, mostly after Americans had voted, as a factor
in swaying a $6 billion election, it is too silly to contemplate.
That RT and Sputnik ran pieces critical of Hillary
Clinton was their right, and they were hardly alone. RT and Sputnik 's reach in the U.S. is minuscule compared to
Fox News , which slammed Clinton throughout the campaign, or for that matter, MSNBC, CNN and other mainstream news outlets,
which often expressed open disdain for Republican Donald Trump but also gave extensive coverage to issues such as the security concerns
about Clinton's private email server.
Another vague Russia-gate suspicion stemming largely from Steele's opposition research is that somehow Russia bribed or blackmailed
Trump because of past business with Russians. But there are evidentiary and logical problems with these theories, since
some lucrative deals fell
through (and presumably wouldn't have if Trump was being paid off).
Some have questioned how Trump could have supported detente with Russia without being beholden to Moscow in some way. But Jeffrey
Sommers, a political scientist at the University of Wisconsin, wrote a
convincing essay explaining adviser Steve Bannon's influence
on Trump's thinking about Russia and the need for cooperation between the two powers to solve international problems.
Without convincing evidence, I remain a Russia-gate skeptic. I am not defending Russia. Russia can defend itself. However, amid
the growing censorship and the dangerous new McCarthyism, I am trying to defend America -- from itself.
An earlier version of this story appeared onConsortium News.
Joe Lauria is a veteran foreign-affairs journalist. He has written for the Boston Globe, the Sunday Times of London and
the Wall Street Journal among other newspapers. He is the author of How I Lost By Hillary Clinton published by OR
Books in June 2017. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter at
@unjoe .
But Huffington stepped down as editor in August 2016 and has nothing to do with the site now. It is run by Lydia Polgreen,
a former New York Times reporter and editor, who evidently has very different ideas. In April, she completely redesigned the
site and renamed it HuffPost.
" It's a story as old as civilization: a wealthy and powerful elite fending off popular unrest by trying to contain knowledge
of how the elite gain at the others' expense, at home and abroad. "
This is exactly what Howard Zinn writes. Alas it is the same at this side of the Atlantic. The British newspaper Guardian was
independent, Soros bought it. Dutch official 'news' is just government propaganda.
But also most Dutch dicussion sites are severely biased, criticism of Israel is next to impossible. And of course the words
'populist' and 'extreme right' are propaganda words, used for those who oppose mainstream politics: EU, euro, globalisation, unlimited
immigration, etc.
Despite all these measures and censorship, including self censorship, dissident political parties grow stronger and stronger.
One could see this in the French presidential elections, one sees it in Germany where AfD now is in parliament, the Reichstag,
one sees it in Austria, where the nationalist party got about half the votes, one sees it in countries as Poland and Hungary,
that want to keep their cultures. And of course there is Brexit 'we want our country back'.
In the Netherlands the in October 2016 founded party FvD, Forum for Democracy, got two seats in the last elections, but polls
show that if now elections were held, it would have some fourteen seats in our parliament of 150. The present ruling coalition,
led by Rutte, has very narrow margins, both in parliament and what here is called Eerste Kamer.
Parliament maybe can be seen as House, Eerste Kamer as Senate. There is a good chance that at the next Eerste Kamer elections
FvD will be able to end the reign of Rutte, who is, in my opinion, just Chairman of the Advance Rutte Foundation, and of course
a stiff supporter of Merkel and Brussels. Now that the end of Merkel is at the horizon, I'm curious how Rutte will manoevre.
"The viewpoints of Iranians, Palestinians, Russians, North Koreans and others are never fully reported in the Western media
although the supposed mission of journalism is to help citizens understand a frighteningly complex world from multiple points
of view" -- Joe Lauria
Lauria's article is an excellent review of the hydra-headed MSM perversion of political journalism in this era of the PATRIOT
Act, with special focus on 2016-2017. With one small exception that still is worth noting. Namely the inclusion of "North Koreans"
along with Palestinians, Russians and Iranians as those whose viewpoints are never represented in the Western media.
It"s true, of course, that the viewpoints of North Koreans go unreported in MSM, but that's hardly the "whole truth and nothing
but the truth." The problems confronting any journalist who might endeavor to report on public opinion in North Korea are incomparably
more difficult than the problems confronting attempts to report on public opinion in Iran, in Russia or in Palestine. These three
"theaters" -- so to speak –each with its own challenges, no doubt, should never be conflated with the severe realities of censorship
and even forceful thought policing in North Korea.
Despite this support from independent media, a senior official at Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting, I learned, declined
to take up my cause because he believes in the Russia-gate story. I also learned that a senior officer at the American Civil
Liberties Union rejected my case because he too believes in Russia-gate. Both of these serious organizations were set up precisely
to defend individuals in such situations on principle, not preference.
I'm not even sure that they believe in Russia-gate. This could easily be cowardice or corruption. The globalists have poured
untold millions into "fixing" the Internet wrongthink so it's only natural that we're seeing results. I'm seeing "grassroots"
shilling everywhere, for instance.
This is not going to work for them. You can't force consent of the governed. The more you squeeze, the more sand slips through
your fingers.
It is worse than censorship. History, via web searches, are being deleted. Now, you have no hint what is missing. Example, in
1999 I read an article in a weekly tech newspaper – maybe Information Week – about university researchers who discovered that
64 bit encrypted phones were only using the first 56 bits and the last 8 were zeros. They suspected that the US government was
responsible. Cannot find any reference to that online.
Joe Lauria may very well be a "victim", but certainly not one that I would parade around as some USDA table grade poster child
victim of really egregious reprisals. He's a veteran in the establishment MSM milieu and certainly knew what kind of a shit bird
operation it is that he chose to attempt to publish his piece in.
Oh, lest I forget to mention, he didn't lose his livelihood, get ejected from his gym, have his country club membership revoked,
get banned from AirB&B ad nauseum.
It is an interesting article. I am curious about the '17 intellience agencies' thing, CIA, FBI, NSA, army and navy
intel units, well that is making five or so. The latter two would likely having no connection with checking the 'Russia was hacking
the election', likewise, air force sigint (which they obviously need and have). So, a list from a poster who is expert on the
topic, what are the seventeen agencies which were agreeing on vicious Vlad having 'hacked' poor Hillary's campaign?
Is anybody knowing? This is a very real, good, and serious question, from me, and have not seeing it before. Can anybody producing
a list of the seventeen agencies? Parodic replies welcome, but it would be of interest to many if somebody could making a list
of the seventeen lurching about in Hillary's addled mind.
We're witnessing a huge closing of the American Liberal secular mind. There used to be secular liberal hard copy magazines like
the Atlantic Magazine that published intelligent well written articles and commentary about foreign affairs, immigration, Islam
from a principled secular, Liberal perspective – especially in the early 1990s. That's pretty much gone now as The Atlantic is
mostly just a blog that puts out the party line. There are still, thankfully a few exceptions like
Your article seemed otherwise good, but lacked any humor early on to keep me reading. After all, it is 6000 words! I have a job,
family, obligations, other readings, and only so much thinking energy in a day. I think You might try shortening such articles
to maybe 2000 – 3000 words? Like I said though, You did present some good ideas.
Mark James' modified limited hangout shows us the true purpose of his ICCPR-illegal statist war propaganda. James candidly jettisons
Hillary, acknowledging the obvious, that she was the more repulsive choice in this duel of the titans. But James is still hanging
on to the crucial residual message of the CIA line: Putin tripleplus bad.
Without factual support James calls Putin an organized criminal. US NGO staff who have actually dealt with Putin characterize
him as a strict legalist. In fact, Putin's incorruptibility is what drives CIA up the wall. Ask any upper-echelon spook. Putin's
cupidity deficit short-circuits CIA's go-to subversion method, massive bribes. Putin has an uneasy relationship with the kleptocrats
CIA installed while their puppet Yeltsin staggered around blind drunk. But Putin has materially curbed kleptocratic corruption
and subversion. Russians appreciate that.
James fantasizes that Putin is going to get ousted and murdered. However Putin has public approval that US politicians couldn't
dream of. This is because Russia's government meets world human rights standards that the US fails to meet. The Russian government
complies with the Paris Principles, world standard for institutionalized human rights protection under expert international review.
The USA does not. The USA is simply not is Russia's league with respect to universally-acknowledged rights.
James can easily verify this by comparing the US human-rights deficiencies to corresponding Russian reviews, point-by-point,
based on each article of the core human rights conventions.
Comprehensive international human rights review shows that the USA is not in Russia's league. Look at the maps if you can't
be bothered to read the particulars – they put the US in an underdeveloped backwater with headchopping Arab princelings and a
couple African presidents-for-life. CIA's INGSOC fixation on Putin is intended to divert your attention from the objectively superior
human-rights performance of the Russian government as a whole, and the USA's failure and disgrace in public in Geneva, front of
the whole world.
How did this happen? Turns out, dismantling the USSR did Russia a world of good. Now we see it's time to take the USA apart
and do the same for America. That's the origin of the panic you can smell on the CIA regime.
There is censorship on blogs.
> I have been banned from The Atlantic blog for correcting a noted anti-Iran blogger.
> I have been banned from the National Interest blog for highlighting Pentagon's acquisition problems.
> I have been banned by Facebook for declaring that females don't belong in the infantry. I "violated community standards" with
my opinion which was based somewhat on my time in the infantry, which my PC critic probably lacked.
In hindsight I wish I would have made a list of sites where I was banned, some of them several times. In the USA Washpost and
Christian Science Monitor, both sites were abolished, I suppose because censorship and banning became too expensive.
In UK War Without End was was one of the very few sites where was no censorship, UK laws forced the owner to close down. The
site was near impossible to hack, the owner had a hand built interface in Linux between incoming messages and the site itself.
At present there is not one more or less serious Dutch site where I can write.
On top of that, most Dutch sites no longer exist, especially those operated by newspapers.
It seems to be the same in Germany. The German journalist Udo Ulfkotte, he died maybe a year ago, he worked long for the
prestigious newspaper FAZ, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, wrote a book about bought journalism. His explanation for the disappearence
of discussion sites with newspapers is that the journalists discovered that the reactions got far more attention than the articles.
Very annoying, of course. With us here, Follow The Money, and The Post Online behave as childish as German newspapers.
Your post is exactly what I wanted to write. Saved me the effort. I figured out the MSM was nothing but lies around 1966. I
have no sympathy for any MSM journalist.
Wouldn't it be scary if a nation's central bank was controlled and run by a group pretending to be loyal to their host nation,
but was actually in league with a nation that was trying to gobble up huge chunks of ME land, doing this by controlling the host
nation's media outlets, and forever posting psyop stories and actual lies to support the land thefts?
And if that same central bank would give out loans -- that never get repaid -- to the same ethnic gangsters that would
then would use those loans to buy up over 90% of the host nations MSM outlets to forever ensure that a steady drip, drip, drip
of propaganda went into the host nation's residents, ever so slowly turning them into mindless sheep always bleating for more
wars to help the ethnic gangsters steal their way to an Eretz state?
Yes, it would be scary to live in a tyrant state like that.
Reminds me of a contemporary Russian joke: "Everything communists told us about socialism turned out to be a lie. However,
everything they told us about capitalism is perfectly true".
Looks like Browder was connected to MI6. That means that intellignece agances participated in economic rape of Russia That's explains a lot, including his change of citizenship from US to UK. He wanted better
protection.
Notable quotes:
"... The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S. Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called the first shot in the New Cold War. ..."
"... Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale. ..."
"... Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky – rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme. ..."
"... Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats – the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part, brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy. ..."
"... That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along. ..."
"... By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump Tower with Trump's son. ..."
"... But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post. ..."
"... There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations in the past. ..."
"... Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams, the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen." ..."
"... So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment of the New Cold War. ..."
"... Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about "Russian propaganda" and "fake news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets eagerly awaiting algorithms that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false." ..."
"... First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue. ..."
"... From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was. I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available. ..."
"... Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you. ..."
"... Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the Russian financial crisis. ..."
"... Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes. ..."
"... Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it. ..."
"... I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and 1984 not so distant. ..."
"... Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews. I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into accurately reporting it. ..."
"... Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars. The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial, at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years. ..."
"... Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary film product. ..."
"... "[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row? ..."
"... "The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement. ..."
"... "The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic. The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD. ..."
"... Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern about Canada following the Cold War without examination. ..."
"... Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution (in name yes, but in fact not). ..."
"... I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could (with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a stop to them. ..."
"... backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All the plunder flowed into the Western Countries. ..."
"... I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of the crooks looting Russia. ..."
"... I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart. I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it up. ..."
"... The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators: https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/ ..."
Exclusive: A documentary debunking the Magnitsky myth, which was an opening salvo in the New Cold War, was largely blocked from
viewing in the West but has now become a factor in Russia-gate, reports Robert Parry.
Near the center of the current furor over Donald Trump Jr.'s meeting with a Russian lawyer in June 2016 is a documentary that
almost no one in the West has been allowed to see, a film that flips the script on the story of the late Sergei Magnitsky and his
employer, hedge-fund operator William Browder.
The Russian lawyer, Natalie Veselnitskaya, who met with Trump Jr. and other advisers to Donald Trump Sr.'s campaign, represented
a company that had run afoul of a U.S. investigation into money-laundering allegedly connected to the Magnitsky case and his death
in a Russian prison in 2009. His death sparked a campaign spearheaded by Browder, who used his wealth and clout to lobby the U.S.
Congress in 2012 to enact the Magnitsky Act to punish alleged human rights abusers in Russia. The law became what might be called
the first shot in the New Cold War.
According to Browder's narrative, companies ostensibly under his control had been hijacked by corrupt Russian officials in furtherance
of a $230 million tax-fraud scheme; he then dispatched his "lawyer" Magnitsky to investigate and – after supposedly uncovering evidence
of the fraud – Magnitsky blew the whistle only to be arrested by the same corrupt officials who then had him locked up in prison
where he died of heart failure from physical abuse.
Despite Russian denials – and the "dog ate my homework" quality of Browder's self-serving narrative – the dramatic tale became
a cause celebre in the West. The story eventually attracted the attention of Russian filmmaker Andrei Nekrasov, a known critic of
President Vladimir Putin. Nekrasov decided to produce a docu-drama that would present Browder's narrative to a wider public. Nekrasov
even said he hoped that he might recruit Browder as the narrator of the tale.
However, the project took an unexpected
turn when Nekrasov's research kept turning up contradictions to Browder's storyline, which began to look more and more like a
corporate cover story. Nekrasov discovered that a woman working in Browder's company was the actual whistleblower and that Magnitsky
– rather than a crusading lawyer – was an accountant who was implicated in the scheme.
So, the planned docudrama suddenly was transformed into a documentary with a dramatic reversal as Nekrasov struggles with what
he knows will be a dangerous decision to confront Browder with what appear to be deceptions. In the film, you see Browder go from
a friendly collaborator into an angry adversary who tries to bully Nekrasov into backing down.
Blocked Premiere
Ultimately, Nekrasov completes his extraordinary film – entitled "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes" – and it was set for
a premiere at the European Parliament in Brussels in April 2016. However, at the last moment – faced with Browder's legal threats
– the parliamentarians pulled the plug. Nekrasov encountered similar resistance in the United States, a situation that, in part,
brought Natalie Veselnitskaya into this controversy.
Film director Andrei Nekrasov, who produced "The Magnitsky Act: Behind the Scenes."
As a lawyer defending Prevezon, a real-estate company registered in Cyprus, on a money-laundering charge, she
was dealing with U.S. prosecutors in New York City and, in that role, became an advocate for lifting the U.S. sanctions, The
Washington Post reported.
That was when she turned to promoter Rob Goldstone to set up a meeting at Trump Tower with Donald Trump Jr. To secure the
sit-down on June 9, 2016, Goldstone dangled the prospect that Veselnitskaya had some derogatory financial information from the Russian
government about Russians supporting the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr. jumped at the possibility and brought senior Trump
campaign advisers, Paul Manafort and Jared Kushner, along.
By all accounts, Veselnitskaya had little or nothing to offer about the DNC and turned the conversation instead to the Magnitsky
Act and Putin's retaliatory measure to the sanctions, canceling a program in which American parents adopted Russian children. One
source told me that Veselnitskaya also wanted to enhance her stature in Russia with the boast that she had taken a meeting at Trump
Tower with Trump's son.
But another goal of Veselnitskaya's U.S. trip was to participate in an effort to give Americans a chance to see Nekrasov's
blacklisted documentary. She traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post.
There were hopes to show the documentary to members of Congress but the offer was rebuffed. Instead a room was rented at the
Newseum near Capitol Hill. Browder's lawyers. who had successfully intimidated the European Parliament, also tried to strong arm
the Newseum, but its officials responded that they were only renting out a room and that they had allowed other controversial presentations
in the past.
Their stand wasn't exactly a profile in courage. "We're not going to allow them not to show the film," said Scott Williams,
the chief operating officer of the Newseum. "We often have people renting for events that other people would love not to have happen."
In an article about the controversy in June 2016, The New York Times
added that "A screening at the Newseum is especially controversial because it could attract lawmakers or their aides." Heaven
forbid!
One-Time Showing
So, Nekrasov's documentary got a one-time showing with Veselnitskaya reportedly in attendance and with a follow-up discussion
moderated by journalist Seymour Hersh. However, except for that audience, the public of the United States and Europe has been essentially
shielded from the documentary's discoveries, all the better for the Magnitsky myth to retain its power as a seminal propaganda moment
of the New Cold War.
Financier William Browder (right) with Magnitsky's widow and son, along with European parliamentarians.
After the Newseum presentation,
a Washington Post editorial branded Nekrasov's documentary Russian "agit-prop" and sought to discredit Nekrasov without addressing
his many documented examples of Browder's misrepresenting both big and small facts in the case. Instead, the Post accused Nekrasov
of using "facts highly selectively" and insinuated that he was merely a pawn in the Kremlin's "campaign to discredit Mr. Browder
and the Magnitsky Act."
The Post also misrepresented the structure of the film by noting that it mixed fictional scenes with real-life interviews and
action, a point that was technically true but willfully misleading because the fictional scenes were from Nekrasov's original idea
for a docu-drama that he shows as part of explaining his evolution from a believer in Browder's self-exculpatory story to a skeptic.
But the Post's deception is something that almost no American would realize because almost no one got to see the film.
The Post concluded smugly: "The film won't grab a wide audience, but it offers yet another example of the Kremlin's increasingly
sophisticated efforts to spread its illiberal values and mind-set abroad. In the European Parliament and on French and German television
networks, showings were put off recently after questions were raised about the accuracy of the film, including by Magnitsky's family.
"We don't worry that Mr. Nekrasov's film was screened here, in an open society. But it is important that such slick spin be fully
exposed for its twisted story and sly deceptions."
The Post's gleeful editorial had the feel of something you
might read in a totalitarian
society where the public only hears about dissent when the Official Organs of the State denounce some almost unknown person for
saying something that almost no one heard.
New Paradigm
The Post's satisfaction that Nekrasov's documentary would not draw a large audience represents what is becoming a new paradigm
in U.S. mainstream journalism, the idea that it is the media's duty to protect the American people from seeing divergent narratives
on sensitive geopolitical issues.
Over the past year, we have seen a growing hysteria about
"Russian propaganda" and "fake
news" with The New York Times and other major news outlets
eagerly awaiting algorithms
that can be unleashed on the Internet to eradicate information that groups like Google's First Draft Coalition deem "false."
First Draft consists of the Times, the Post, other mainstream outlets, and establishment-approved online news sites, such
as Bellingcat with links to the pro-NATO think tank, Atlantic Council. First Draft's job will be to serve as a kind of Ministry of
Truth and thus shield the public from information that is deemed propaganda or untrue.
In the meantime, there is the ad hoc approach that was applied to Nekrasov's documentary. Having missed the Newseum showing, I
was only able to view the film because I was given a special password to an online version.
From searches that I did on Wednesday, Nekrasov's film was not available on Amazon although a pro-Magnitsky documentary was.
I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
But the Post's editors were right in their expectation that "The film won't grab a wide audience." Instead, it has become a good
example of how political and legal pressure can effectively black out what we used to call "the other side of the story." The film
now, however, has unexpectedly become a factor in the larger drama of Russia-gate and the drive to remove Donald Trump Sr. from the
White House.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s.
You can buy his latest book, America's Stolen Narrative, either in
print here or as an e-book
(from
Amazon and
barnesandnoble.com ).
Why are so many people–corporate executives, governments, journalists, politicians–afraid of William Browder? Why isn't
Andrei Nekrasov's film available via digital versatile disk, for sale on line? Mr. Parry, why can't you find it? Oh, wait: You
did! Heaven forbid we, your readers, should screen it. Since you, too, are helping keep that film a big fat secret at least give
us a few clues as to where we can find it. Throw us a bone! Thank you.
Rob Roy , July 13, 2017 at 2:45 pm
Parry isn't keeping the film viewing a secret. He was given a private password and perhaps can get permission to let the readers
here have it. It isn't up to Parry himself but rather to the person(s) who have the rights to the password. I've come across this
problem before.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 4:01 pm
Parry wrote: I did find a streaming service that appeared to have the film available.
Any link?? I am willing to buy it.
Lisa , July 13, 2017 at 6:28 pm
This may not be of much help, as the film is dubbed in Russian. If you want to look for the Russian versions on the internet,
search for: "????? ?????? ????????? "????? ???????????. ?? ????????"
Hysterical agit-prop troll insists that world trembles in fear of "genuine American hero" William Browder. John McCain
in 2012 was too busy trembling to notice that Browder had given up his US citizenship in 1998 in order to better profit from the
Russian financial crisis.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Abe – and to escape U.S. taxes.
incontinent reader , July 13, 2017 at 6:24 pm
Well stated.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 2:38 pm
Mr. Parry,
Excellent report and analysis. Thanks for timely reminder regarding the Magitsky story and the fascinating background regarding
Andrei Nekrasov's film, in particular its metamorphosis and subsequent aggressive suppression. Both of those factors render the
film a particular credibility and wish on my part to view it.
Is there any chance you can share information regarding a means of accessing the forbidden film?
I am beginning to feel more and more like the citizens of the old USSR, who, were to my recollection and understanding
back in the 50's and 60's:. Longing to read and hear facts suppressed by the communist state, dependent upon the Voice of America
and underground news sources within the Soviet Union for the truth. RU, Consortium news, et. al. seem somewhat a parallel, and
1984 not so distant.
Last night, After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson, i was inspired to watch episode 2 of The Putin Interviews.
I felt enlightened. If only the Establishment Media could turn from promoting its agenda of shaping and suppressing the news into
accurately reporting it.
Media corruption is not so new. Yellow journalism around the turn of the 19th century, took us into a progression of wars.
The War to End All Wars didn't. Blame the munitions makers and the Military Industrial Complex if you will, but a corrupt medial,
at the very least enabled a progression of wars over the last 120 or so years.
Demonizing other countries is bad enough, but wilfully ignoring the potential for a nuclear war to end not only war, but life
as we know it, is appalling.
"After watching Max Boot self destruct on Tucker Carlson "
Am I the only one who thinks that Max Boot should have been institutionalized for some time already? He is not well.
Vincent Castigliola , July 13, 2017 at 9:41 pm
Anna,
Perhaps Max can share a suite with John McCain. Sadly, the illness is widespread and sometimes seems to be in the majority. Neo
con/lib both are adamant in finding enemies and imposing punishment.
Finding splinters, ignoring beams. Changing regimes everywhere. Making the world safe for Democracy. Unless a man they don't
like get elected
Max Boot parents are Russain Jews who seemingly instilled in him a rabid hatred for everything Russian. The same is with Aperovitch,
the CrowdStrike fraudster. The first Soviet (Bolshevik) government was 85% Jewish. Considering what happened to Russia under Bolsheviks,
it seems that Russians are supremely tolerant people.
Anna, Anti-Semitism will get you NOWHERE, and you should be ashamed of yourself for injecting such HATRED into the rational
discussion here.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:03 pm
Dear orwell
re Anna
Its not anti Semitic if its true .and its true he is a Russian Jew and its very obvious he hates Russia–as does the whole Jewish
Zionist crowd in the US.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:02 am
orwell, I wonder why the truth always turns out to be so anti-semitic!?
Taras77 , July 13, 2017 at 11:17 pm
I hope you caught the preceding tucker interview with Ralph Peters, who says he is a retired us army LTC. He came off as completely
deranged and hysterical. The two interviews back to back struck me as neo con desperation and panic. My respect for Tucker
just went up for taking on these two wackos.
Zachary Smith , July 13, 2017 at 2:51 pm
The fact that the film is being suppressed by everybody is significant to me. I don't know a thing about the "facts" of the
Magnitsky case, and a quick look at the results of a Google search suggests this film isn't going to be available to me unless
I shell out some unknown amount of money.
If the producers want the film to be seen, perhaps they ought to release it for download to any interested parties for a nominal
sum. This will mean they won't make any profit, but on the other hand they will be able to spit in the eyes of the censors.
Dan Mason , July 13, 2017 at 6:42 pm
I went searching the net for access to this film and found that I was blocked at every turn. I did find a few links which all
seemed to go to the same destination which claimed to provide access once I registered with their site. I decided to avoid that
route. I don't really have that much interest in the Magnitsky affair, but I do wonder why we are being denied access to information.
Who has this kind of influence, and why are they so fearful. I'm really afraid that we already live in a largely hidden Orwellian
world. Now where did I put that tin foil hat?
The Orwellian World is NOT HIDDEN, it is clearly visible.
Drew Hunkins , July 13, 2017 at 2:53 pm
Nekrasov, though he's a Putin critic, is a genuine hero in this instance. He ulitimately put his preconceptions aside and
took the story where it truly led him. Nekrasov deserves boatloads of praise for his handling of Browder and his final documentary
film product.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 3:30 pm
Drew – good comment. It's very hard to "turn", isn't it? I wonder if many people appreciate what it takes to do this. Easier
to justify, turn a blind eye, but to actually stop, question, think, and then follow where the story leads you takes courage and
strength.
Especially when your bucking an aggressive billionaire.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:49 am
BannanaBoat – that too!
Zim , July 13, 2017 at 3:11 pm
This is interesting:
"In December 2015, The Wall Street Journal reported that Hillary Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act while serving as secretary
of state. Her opposition coincided with Bill Clinton giving a speech in Moscow for Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank!
for which he was paid $500,000.
"Mr. Clinton also received a substantial payout in 2010 from Renaissance Capital, a Russian investment bank whose executives
were at risk of being hurt by possible U.S. sanctions tied to a complex and controversial case of alleged corruption in Russia.
Members of Congress wrote to Mrs. Clinton in 2010 seeking to deny visas to people who had been implicated by Russian accountant
Sergei Magnitsky, who was jailed and died in prison after he uncovered evidence of a large tax-refund fraud. William Browder,
a foreign investor in Russia who had hired Mr. Magnitsky, alleged that the accountant had turned up evidence that Renaissance
officials, among others, participated in the fraud."
The State Department opposed the sanctions bill at the time, as did the Russian government. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov pushed Hillary Clinton to oppose the legislation during a meeting in St. Petersburg in June 2012, citing that U.S.-Russia
relations would suffer as a result."
"[Veselnitskaya] traveled to Washington in the days after her Trump Tower meeting and attended a House Foreign Affairs
Committee hearing, according to The Washington Post." The other day I saw photos of her sitting right behind Amb. McFaul in some
past hearing. How did she get a seat on the front row?
Now I remember that Post editorial. I was one of only 20 commenters before they shut down comments. It was some heavy pearl
clutching.
afterthought couldn't the film be shown on RT America?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:11 am
Would that not enable Bowder's employees online to claim that this documentary is Russian state propaganda, which it obviously
is not because it would have been made available for free everywhere already just like RT. I believe that Nekrasov does not like
RT and RT probably still does not like Nekrasov. The point of RT has never been the truth then the alternative point of view,
as they advertised: Audi alteram partem.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 3:41 pm
"The approach taken by Brennan's task force in assessing Russia and its president seems eerily reminiscent of the analytical
blinders that hampered the U.S. intelligence community when it came to assessing the objectives and intent of Saddam Hussein
and his inner leadership regarding weapons of mass destruction. The Russia NIA notes, 'Many of the key judgments rely on a
body of reporting from multiple sources that are consistent with our understanding of Russian behavior.' There is no better
indication of a tendency toward 'group think' than that statement.
Moreover, when one reflects on the fact much of this 'body of reporting' was shoehorned after the fact into an analytical
premise predicated on a single source of foreign-provided intelligence, that statement suddenly loses much of its impact.
"The acknowledged deficit on the part of the U.S. intelligence community of fact-driven insight into the specifics of
Russian presidential decision-making, and the nature of Vladimir Putin as an individual in general, likewise seems problematic.
The U.S. intelligence community was hard wired into pre-conceived notions about how and what Saddam Hussein would think and
decide, and as such remained blind to the fact that he would order the totality of his weapons of mass destruction to be destroyed
in the summer of 1991, or that he could be telling the truth when later declaring that Iraq was free of WMD.
'President Putin has repeatedly and vociferously denied any Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Those
who cite the findings of the Russia NIA as indisputable proof to the contrary, however, dismiss this denial out of hand. And yet
nowhere in the Russia NIA is there any evidence that those who prepared it conducted anything remotely resembling the kind of
'analysis of alternatives' mandated by the ODNI when it comes to analytic standards used to prepare intelligence community assessments
and estimates. Nor is there any evidence that the CIA's vaunted 'Red Cell' was approached to provide counterintuitive assessments
of premises such as 'What if President Putin is telling the truth?'
'Throughout its history, the NIC has dealt with sources of information that far exceeded any sensitivity that might attach
to Brennan's foreign intelligence source. The NIC had two experts that it could have turned to oversee a project like the Russia
NIA!the NIO for Cyber Issues, and the Mission Manager of the Russian and Eurasia Mission Center; logic dictates that both should
have been called upon, given the subject matter overlap between cyber intrusion and Russian intent.
'The excuse that Brennan's source was simply too sensitive to be shared with these individuals, and the analysts assigned to
them, is ludicrous!both the NIO for cyber issues and the CIA's mission manager for Russia and Eurasia are cleared to receive the
most highly classified intelligence and, moreover, are specifically mandated to oversee projects such as an investigation into
Russian meddling in the American electoral process.
'President Trump has come under repeated criticism for his perceived slighting of the U.S. intelligence community in repeatedly
citing the Iraqi weapons of mass destruction intelligence failure when downplaying intelligence reports, including the Russia
NIA, about Russian interference in the 2016 election. Adding insult to injury, the president's most recent comments were made
on foreign soil (Poland), on the eve of his first meeting with President Putin, at the G-20 Conference in Hamburg, Germany, where
the issue of Russian meddling was the first topic on the agenda.
"The politics of the wisdom of the timing and location of such observations aside, the specific content of the president's
statements appear factually sound."
Thanks Abe once again, for providing us with news which will never be printed or aired in our MSM. Brennan may ignore the NIC,
as Congress and the Executive Branch constantly avoid paying attention to the GAO. Why even have these agencies, if our leaders
aren't going to listen them?
Virginia , July 13, 2017 at 6:16 pm
Abe, I'm always amazed at how much you know. Thank you for sharing. If you have your comments in article form or on a site
where they can be shared, I'd really like to know about it. I've tried, but I garble the many points you make when trying to explain
historical events you've told us about.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 9:08 am
Thanks Abe. You are a real asset to us here at CN.
John V. Walsh , July 13, 2017 at 3:54 pm
Very good article! The entire Magnitsky saga has become so convoluted and mired in controversy and propaganda that it is very
hard to understand. I remember vaguely the controversy surrounding the showing of the film at the Newseum. it is especially impressive
that Nekrasov changed his opinion as fcts unfolded.
I will now try to get the docudrama and watch it.
If anyone has suggestions on how to do this, please let me know via a response. here.
Thanks.
A 'Magnitsky Act' in Canada was approved by the (appointed) Senate several months ago and is now undergoing fine tuning in
the House of Commons prior to a third and final vote of approval. The proposed law has the unanimous support of the parties in
Parliament.
A column in today's Globe and Mail daily by the newspaper's 'chief political writer' tiptoes around the Magnitsky story, never
once daring to admit that a contrary narrative exists to that of Bill Browder.
Magnitsky Act in Canada has been based on made-up `facts` as Globe & Mail reporting proves. Not news, but deepens my concern
about Canada following the Cold War without examination.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 5:56 pm
Roger Annis – just little lemmings following the leader. Disgusting. I hope you posted a comment at the Globe and Mail, Roger,
with a link to this article.
Britton , July 13, 2017 at 4:05 pm
Browder is a Communist Jew, his father has a Communist past according to his background so I know I can't trust anything he
says. Hes just one of many shady interests undermining Putin I've seen over the years. His book Red Notice is just as shady. Good
reporting Consortium News. Fox News promotes Browder like crazy every chance they get especially Fox Business channel.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:06 pm
"Browder is a Communist " Hedge Fund managers are hardly Communist – that's an oxymoron.
ToivoS , July 13, 2017 at 6:02 pm
Bill Browder's grandfather was Earl Browder, leader of the CPUSA from the the late 30s to late 40s. His father was also
a communist. Bill jr parlayed those connections with the Soviet apparatchiks to gain a foothold in looting Russia of its state
assets during the 1990s. No he was not a communist but neither were the leaders of the Soviet Union at the time of its dissolution
(in name yes, but in fact not).
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 6:34 pm
ToivoS,
thank you for this background information.
My main intention had been to straighten out the blurring of calling a hedge fund manager communist. Nowadays everything gets
blurred by people misrepresenting political concepts. Either the people have been dumbed-down by misinformation or misrepresenting
is done in order to keep neo-liberalism the dominant economical model. On many occasions I had read comments of people seemingly
believing that Nationalsocialism had been some variant of socialism. Even the ideas of Bernie Sanders had been misrepresented
as socialist instead of social democratic ones.
backwardsevolution , July 13, 2017 at 6:21 pm
Joe Average – Dave P. mentioned Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn's book entitled "Two Hundred Years Together" the other day. I've been
reading a long synopsis of this book. What Britton says appears to be quite true. I don't know about Browder, but from what I've
read the Jews were instrumental in the communist party, in the deaths of so many Russians. It wasn't just the Jews, but they played
a big part. It's no wonder Solzhenitsyn's book has been "lost in translation", at least into English, for so many years.
I've also heard that it was the Jewish commissars who, when the USSR fell apart, rushed off to grab everything they could
(with the help of outside Jewish money) and became the Russian oligarchs we hear about today. This is probably what Britton is
getting at: "His father has a communist past." You go from running the government to owning it. Anti-Putin because Putin put a
stop to them.
Dave P. , July 13, 2017 at 7:37 pm
backwardsevolution: I worked with a Soviet emigre engineer – Jewish – on the same project in an Engineering design and
construction company during early 1990's. He immigrated with his family around 1991. In Soviet Union, there being no private financial
institutions or lawyers so to speak , many Jews went into science and engineering. A very interesting person, we were close work
place friends. His elder brother had stayed behind back in Russia. His brother was in Moscow and involved in this plunder going
on there. He used to tell me all these hair raising first hand stories about what was going on in Russia during that time. All
the plunder flowed into the Western Countries.
In recent history, no country went through this kind of plunder on a scale Russia went through during ten or fifteen years
starting in 1992. Russia was a very badly ravaged country when Putin took over. Means of production, finance, all came to halt,
and society itself had completely broken down. It appears that the West has all the intentions to do it again.
I have read all the comments up to yours you have told it like it was in Russia in those years. Browder was the king of
the crooks looting Russia. Then he got to John McCain with all his lies and bullshit and was responsible for the sanctions
on Russia. All the comments aboutBrowders grandfather andCommunist party are all true but hardly important. Except that it probably
was how Browder was able to get his fingers on the pie in Russia. And he sure did get his fingers in the pie BIG TIME.
I am a Canadian and am aware of Maginsky Act in Canada. Our Minister Chrystal Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a
few months ago both of these two you could say are not fans of Putin, I certainly don't know what they spoke about but other than
lies from Browder there is no reason she should have been talking with him. I have made comments on other forums regarding these
two meeting. Read Browders book and hopefully see the documentary that this article is about. When I read his book I knew instantly
that he was a crook a charloten and a liar. Just the kind of folk John McCain and a lot of other folks in US politics love. You
all have a nice Peacefull day
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:38 am
Joe Average – "I guess that this book puts blame for Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further
rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's."
No, it doesn't put the blame entirely on the Jews; it just spells out that they did play a large part. As one Jewish scholar
said, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn was too much of an academic, too intelligent to ever put the blame entirely on one group. But something
like 40 – 60 million died – shot, taken out on boats with rocks around their necks and thrown overboard, starved, gassed in rail
cars, poisoned, worked to death, froze, you name it. Every other human slaughter pales in comparison. Good old man, so civilized
(sarc)!
But someone(s) has been instrumental in keeping this book from being translated into English (or so I've read many places online).
Solzhenitsyn's "Gulag Archipelago" and his other books have been translated, but not this one. (Although I just found one site
that has almost all of the chapters translated, but not all). Several people ordered the book off Amazon, only to find out that
it was in the Russian language. LOL
Solzhenitsyn does say at one point in the book: "Communist rebellions in Germany post-WWI was a big reason for the revival
of anti-Semitism (as there was no serious anti-Semitism in the imperial [Kaiser] Germany of 1870 – 1918)."
Lots of Jewish people made it into the upper levels of the Soviet government, academia, etc. (and lots of them were murdered
too). I might skip reading these types of books until I get older. Too bleak. Hard enough reading about the day-to-day stuff here
without going back in time for more fun!
I remember reading Naomi Klein's "Shock Doctrine," but I just could not get through the chapter on the USSR falling apart.
I started reading it, but I didn't want to finish it (and I didn't) because it just made me angry. The West was too unfair! Russia
was asking for help, but instead the West just looted. I'd say that Russia was very lucky to have someone like Putin clean it
up.
Keep smiling, Joe.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:58 am
Dave P. – I told you, you are a wealth of information, a walking encyclopedia. Interesting about your co-worker. Sounds like
it was a free-for-all in Russia. Yes, I totally agree that Putin has done and is doing all he can to bring his country back up.
Very difficult job he is doing, and I hope he is successful at keeping the West out as much as he can, at least until Russia is
strong and sure enough to invite them in on their own terms.
Now go and tell your wife what I said about you being a "walking encyclopedia". She'll probably have a good laugh. (Not that
you're not, but you know what she'll say: "Okay, smartie, now go and do the dishes.")
Chucky LeRoi , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 am
Just some small scale, local color kind of stuff, but living in the USA, west coast specifically, it was quite noticeable in
the mid to late '90's how many Russians with money were suddenly appearing. No apparent skills or 'jobs', but seemingly able to
pay for stuff. Expensive stuff.
A neighbor invited us to her 'place in the mountains', which turned out to be where a lumber company had almost terra-formed
an area and was selling off the results. Her advice: When you go to the lake (i.e., the low area now gathering runoff, paddle
boats rentals, concession stand) you will see a lot of men with huge stomachs and tiny Speedos. They will be very rude, pushy,
confrontational. Ignore them, DO NOT comment on their rudeness or try to deal with their manners. They are Russians, and the amount
of trouble it will stir up – and probable repercussions – are simply not worth it.
Back in town, the anecdotes start piling up quickly. I am talking crowbars through windows (for a perceived insult). A beating
where the victim – who was probably trying something shady – was so pulped the emergency room staff couldn't tell if the implement
used was a 2X4 or a baseball bat. When found he had with $3k in his pocket: robbery was not the motive. More traffic accidents
involving guys with very nice cars and serious attitude problems. I could go on. More and more often somewhere in the relating
of these incidents the phrase " this Russian guy " would come up. It was the increased use of this phrase that was so noticeable.
And now the disclaimer.
Before anybody goes off, I am not anti-Russian, Russo-phobic, what have you. I studied the Russian language in high school
and college (admittedly decades ago). My tax guy is Russian. I love him. My day to day interactions have led me to this pop psychology
observation: the extreme conditions that produced that people and culture produced extremes. When they are of the good, loving
, caring, cultured, helpful sort, you could ask for no better friends. The generosity can be embarrassing. When they are of the
materialistic, evil, self-centered don't f**k with me I am THE BADDEST ASS ON THE PLANET sort, the level of mania and self-importance
is impossible to deal with, just get as far away as possible. It's worked for me.
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 8:10 pm
backwardsevolution,
thanks for the info. I'll add the book to the list of books onto my to-read list. As far as I know a Kibbutz could be described
as a Communist microcosm. The whole idea of Communism itself is based on Marx (a Jew by birth). A while ago I had started reading
"Mein Kampf". I've got to finish the book, in order to see if my assumption is correct. I guess that this book puts blame for
Communism entirely on the Jewish people and that this gave even further rise to antisemitism in the Germany of the 1930's.
The most known Russian Oligarchs that I've heard of are mainly of Jewish origin, but as far as I know they had been too young
to be commissars at the time of the demise of the USSR. At least one aspect I've read of many times is that a lot of them built
their fortunes with the help of quite shady business dealings.
With regard to President Putin I've read that he made a deal with the oligarchs: they should pay their taxes, keep/invest their
money in Russia and keep out of politics. In return he wouldn't dig too deep into their past. Right at the moment everybody in
the West is against President Putin, because he stopped the looting of his country and its citizens and that's something our Western
oligarchs and financial institutions don't like.
On a side note: Several years ago I had started to read several volumes about German history. Back then I didn't notice an
important aspect that should attract my attention a few years later when reading about the rise of John D. Rockefeller. Charlemagne
(Charles the Great) took over power from the Merovingians. Prior to becoming King of the Franks he had been Hausmeier (Mayor of
the Palace) for the Merovingians. Mayor of the Palace was the title of the manager of the household, which seems to be similar
to a procurator and/or accountant (bookkeeper). The similarity of the beginnings of both careers struck me. John D. Rockefeller
started as a bookkeeper. If you look at Bill Gates you'll realize that he was smart enough to buy an operating system for a few
dollars, improved it and sold it to IBM on a large scale. The widely celebrated Steve Jobs was basically the marketing guy, whilst
the real brain behind (the product) Apple had been Steve Wozniak.
Another side note: If we're going down the path of neo-liberalism it will lead us straight back to feudalism – at least if
the economy doesn't blow up (PCR, Michael Hudson, Mike Whitney, Mike Maloney, Jim Rogers, Richard D. Wolff, and many more economists
make excellent points that our present Western economy can't go on forever and is kept alive artificially).
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 12:50 am
Joe Average – somehow my reply to you ended up above your post. What? How did that happen? You can find it there. Thanks for
the interesting info about John D. Rockefeller, Gates, Jobs and Wozniak. Some are good managers, others good at sales, while others
are the creative inventors.
Yes, Joe, I totally agree that we are headed back to feudalism. I don't think we'll have much choice as the oil is running
out. We'll probably be okay, but our children? I worry about them. They'll notice a big change in their lifetimes. The discovery
and capture of oil pulled forward a large population. As we scale back, we could be in trouble, food-wise. Or at least it looks
that way.
Thanks, Joe.
Miranda Keefe , July 14, 2017 at 5:48 am
Charlemagne did not take over from the Merovingians. The Mayor of the Palace was not an accountant.
During the 7th Century the Mayor of the Place more and more became the actual ruler of the Franks. The office had existed for
over a century and was basically the "prime minister" to the king. By the time Pepin of Herstal, a scion of a powerful Frankish
family, took the position in 680, the king was ceremonial leader doing ritual and the Mayor ruled- like the relationship of the
Emperor and the Shogun in Japan. In 687 Pepin's Austrasia conquered Neustria and Burgundy and he added "Duke of the Franks" to
his titles. The office became hereditary.
When Pepin died in 714 there was some unrest as nobles from various parts of the joint kingdoms attempted to get different
ones of his heirs in the office until his son Charles Martel took the reins in 718. This is the famous Charles Martel who defeated
the Moors at Tours in 732. But that was not his only accomplishment as he basically extended the Frankish kingdom to include Saxony.
Charles not only ruled but when the king died he picked which possible heir would become king. Finally near the end of his reign
he didn't even bother replacing the king and the throne was empty.
When Charles Martel died in 741 he followed Frankish custom and divided his kingdom among his sons. By 747 his younger son,
Pepin the Short, had consolidated his rule and with the support of the Pope, deposed the last Merovingian King and became the
first Carolingian King in 751- the dynasty taking its name from Charles Martel. Thus Pepin reunited the two aspects of the Frankish
ruler, combining the rule of the Mayor with the ceremonial reign of the King into the new Kingship.
Pepin expanded the kingdom beyond the Frankish lands even more and his son, Charlemagne, continued that. Charlemagne was 8
when his father took the title of King. Charlemagne never was the Mayor of the Palace, but grew up as the prince. He became King
of the Franks in 768 ruling with his brother, sole King in 781, and then started becoming King of other countries until he united
it all in 800 as the restored Western Roman Emperor.
When he died in 814 the Empire was divided into three Kingdoms and they never reunited again. The western one evolved into
France. The eastern one evolved in the Holy Roman Empire and eventually Germany. The middle one never solidified but became the
Low Countries, Switzerland, and the Italian states.
The Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland met with William Brawder in Davos a few months ago " -- Birds of a feather flock
together. Mrs. Chrystal Freeland has a very interesting background for which she is very proud of: her granddad was a Ukrainian
Nazi collaborator denounced by Jewish investigators:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/02/27/a-nazi-skeleton-in-the-family-closet/
Since the inti-Russian tenor of the Canadian Minister Chrysta Freeland is in accord with the US ziocons anti-Russian policies
(never mind all this fuss about WWII Jewish mass graves in Ukraine), "Chrysta" is totally approved by the US government.
Joe Average , July 14, 2017 at 11:32 pm
I'll reply to myself in order to send a response to backwardsevolution and Miranda Keefe.
For a change I'll be so bold to ignore gentleman style and reply in the order of the posts – instead of Ladies first.
backwardsevolution,
in my first paragraph I failed to make a clear distinction. I started with the remark that I'm adding the book "Two Hundred
Years Together" to my to-read list and then mentioned that I'm right now reading "Mein Kampf". All remarks after mentioning the
latter book are directed at this one – and not the one of Solzhenitsyn.
Miranda Keefe,
I'm aware that accountant isn't an exact characterization of the concept of a Mayor of the Palace. As a precaution I had added
the phrase "seems to be similar". You're correct with the statement that Charlemagne was descendant Karl Martel. At first I intended
to write that Karolinger (Carolings) took over from Merowinger (Merovingians), because those details are irrelevant to the point
that I wanted to make. It would've been an information overload. My main point was the power of accountants and related fields
such as sales and marketing. Neither John D. Rockefeller, Bill Gates nor Steve Jobs actually created their products from scratch.
Many of those who are listed as billionaires haven't been creators / inventors themselves. Completely decoupled from actual
production is banking. Warren Buffet is started as an investment salesman, later stock broker and investor. Oversimplified you
could describe this activity as accounting or sales. It's the same with George Soros and Carl Icahn. Without proper supervision
money managers (or accountants) had and still do screw those who had hired them. One of those victims is former billionaire heiress
Madeleine Schickedanz ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madeleine_Schickedanz
). Generalized you could also say that BlackRock is your money manager accountant. If you've got some investment (that dates
back before 2008), which promises you a higher interest rate after a term of lets say 20 years, the company with which you have
the contract with may have invested your money with BlackRock. The financial crisis of 2008 has shown that finance (accountants
/ money managers) are taking over. Aren't investment bankers the ones who get paid large bonuses in case of success and don't
face hardly any consequences in case of failure? Well, whatever turn future might take, one thing is for sure: whenever SHTF even
the most colorful printed pieces of paper will not taste very well.
Cal , July 13, 2017 at 10:13 pm
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks on
History's Greatest Heist: The Looting of Russia by the Bolsheviks . EVER SINCE THE Emperor Constantine established the legal
position of the church in the
Many Bolsheviks fled to Germany , taking with them some loot that enabled them to get established in Germany. Lots of invaluable
art work also.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 am
Cal – read about "History's Greatest Heist" on Amazon. Sounds interesting. Was one of the main reasons for the Czar's overthrow
to steal and then flee? It's got to have been on some minds. A lot of people got killed, and they would have had wedding rings,
gold, etc. That doesn't even include the wealth that could be stolen from the Czar. Was the theft just one of those things that
happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow in the first place, get some dough and run with
it?
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:22 pm
@ backwards
" Was the theft just one of those things that happened through opportunism, or was it one of the main reasons for the overthrow"'
imo some of both. I am sure when they were selling off Russian valuables to finance their revolution a lot of them set aside
some loot for themselves.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:09 pm
Cal – thank you. Good books like this get us closer and closer to the truth. Thank goodness for these people.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 11:45 am
An autocratic oligarch would probably be a better description. He probably believes like other Synarchist financiers that they
should rightfully rule the World, and see democratic processes as heresy against "The Natural Order for human society", or some
such belief.
Brad Owen , July 14, 2017 at 12:13 pm
Looking up "A short definition of Synarchism (a Post-Napoleonic social phenomenon) by Lyndon LaRouche" would give much insight
into what's going on. People from the intelligence community made sure a copy of a 1940 army intelligence dossier labelled something
like "Synarchism:NAZI/Communist" got into Lyndon's hands. It speaks of the the Synarchist method of attacking a targeted society
from both extreme (Right-Left) ends of the political spectrum. I guess this is dialectics? I suppose the existence of the one
extreme legitimizes the harsh, anti-democratic/anti-human measures taken to exterminate it by the other extreme, actually destroying
the targeted society in the process. America, USSR, and (Sun Yat Sen's old Republic of) China were the targeted societies in the
pre-WWII/WWII yearsfor their "sins" of championing We The People against Oligarchy. FDR knew the Synarchist threat and sided with
Russia and China against Germany and Japan. He knew that, after dealing with the battlefield NAZIs, the "Boardroom" NAZIs would
have to be dealt with Post-War. That all changed with his death.The Synarchists are still at it today, hence all the rabid Russo-phobia,
the Pacific Pivot, and the drive towards war. This is all being foiled with Trump's friendly, cooperative approach towards Russia
and China.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 4:11 pm
Big Brother at work – always protecting us from upsetting information. How nice of him to insure our comfort. No need for us
to bother with all of this confusing stuff, he can do all that for us. The mainstream media will tell us all we need to know ..
(Virginia – please notice my use of irony.)
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Do you remember mike K when porn was censored, and there were two sides to every issue as compromise was always on the table?
Now porn is accessible on cable TV, and there is only one side to every issue, and that's I'm right about everything and your
not, what compromise with you?
Don't get me wrong, I don't really care how we deal with porn, but I am very concerned to why censorship is showing up whereas
we can't see certain things, for certain reasons we know nothing about. Also, I find it unnerving that we as a society continue
to stay so undivided. Sure, we can't all see the same things the same way, but maybe it's me, and I'm getting older by the minute,
but where is our cooperation to at least try and work with each other?
Always like reading your comments mike K Joe
Joe Average , July 13, 2017 at 5:09 pm
Joe,
when it comes to the choice of watching porn and bodies torn apart (real war pictures), I prefer the first one, although we
in the West should be confronted with the horrible pictures of what we're assisting/doing.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 5:27 pm
This is where the Two Joe's are alike.
mike k , July 13, 2017 at 6:07 pm
I do remember those days Joe. I am 86 now, so a lot has changed since 1931. With the 'greed is good' philosophy in vogue now,
those who seek compromise are seen as suckers for the more single minded to take advantage of. Respect for rules of decency is
just about gone, especially at the top of the wealth pyramid.
Distraction from critical thinking, excellent observation ( please forget the NeoCon Demos they are responsible for half of
the nightmare USA society has become.
ranney , July 13, 2017 at 4:37 pm
Wow Robert, what a fascinating article! And how complicated things become "when first we practice to deceive".
Abe thank you for the link to Ritter's article; that's a really good one too!
John , July 13, 2017 at 4:40 pm
If we get into a shooting war with Russia and the human race somehow survives it Robert Parry' s name will one day appear in
the history books as the person who most thoroughly documented the events leading up to that war. He will be considered to be
a top historian as well as a top journalist.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:01 pm
"Browder, who abjured his American citizenship in 1998 to become a British subject, reveals more about his own selective advocacy
of democratic principles than about the film itself. He might recall that in his former homeland freedom of the press remains
a cherished value."
Abe – "never driven by the money". No, he would never be that type of guy (sarc)!
"It's hard to know what Browder will do next. He rules out any government ambitions, instead saying he can achieve more by
lobbying it.
This summer, he says he met "big Hollywood players" in a bid to turn his book into a major film.
"The most important next step in the campaign is to adapt the book into a Hollywood feature film," he says. "I have been approached
by many film-makers and spent part of the summer in LA meeting with screenwriters, producers and directors to figure out what
the best constellation of players will be on this.
"There are a lot of people looking at it. It's still difficult to say who we will end up choosing. There are many interesting
options, but I'm not going to name any names."
What the ..? I can see it now, George Clooney in the lead role, Mr. White Helmets himself, with his twins in tow.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 1:56 am
Is it not impressive how money buys out reality in the modern world? This is why one can safely assume that whatever is told
in the MSM is completely opposite to the truth. Would MSM have to push it if it were the truth? You may call this Kiza's Law if
you like (modestly): " The truth is always opposite to what MSM say! " The 0.1% of situations where this is not the case
is the margin of error.
Abe , July 13, 2017 at 7:39 pm
"no figure in this saga has a more tangled family relationship with the Kremlin than the London-based hedge fund manager Bill
Browder [ ]
"there's a reticence in his Jewish narrative. One of his first jobs in London is with the investment operation of the publishing
billionaire Robert Maxwell. As it happens, Maxwell was originally a Czech Jewish Holocaust survivor who fled and became a decorated
British soldier, then helped in 1948 to set up the secret arms supply line to newly independent Israel from communist Czechoslovakia.
He was also rumored to be a longtime Mossad agent. But you learn none of that from Browder's memoir.
"The silence is particularly striking because when Browder launches his own fund, he hires a former Israeli Mossad agent, Ariel,
to set up his security operation, manned mainly by Israelis. Over time, Browder and Ariel become close. How did that connection
come about? Was it through Maxwell? Wherever it started, the origin would add to the story. Why not tell it?
"When Browder sets up his own fund, Hermitage Capital Management -- named for the famed czarist-era St. Petersburg art museum,
though that's not explained either -- his first investor is Beny Steinmetz, the Israeli diamond billionaire. Browder tells how
Steinmetz introduced him to the Lebanese-Brazilian Jewish banking billionaire Edmond Safra, who invests and becomes not just a
partner but also a mentor and friend.
"Safra is also internationally renowned as the dean of Sephardi Jewish philanthropy; the main backer of Israel's Shas party,
the Sephardi Torah Guardians, and of New York's Holocaust memorial museum, and a megadonor to Yeshiva University, Hebrew University,
the Weizmann Institute and much more. Browder must have known all that. Considering the closeness of the two, it's surprising
that none of it gets mentioned.
"It's possible that Browder's reticence about his Jewish connections is simply another instance of the inarticulateness that
seizes so many American Jews when they try to address their Jewishness."
Abe – what a web. Money makes money, doesn't it? It's often what club you belong to and who you know. I remember a millionaire
in my area long ago who went bankrupt. The wealthy simply chipped in, gave him some start-up money, and he was off to the races
again. Simple as that. And I would think that the Jews are an even tighter group who invest with each other, are privy to inside
information, get laws changed in favor of each other, pay people off when one gets in trouble. Browder seems a shifty sort. As
the article says, he leaves a lot out.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 11:37 pm
In 1988, Stanton Wheeler (Yale University – Law School), David L. Weisburd (Hebrew University of Jerusalem; George Mason University
– The Department of Criminology, Law & Society; Hebrew University of Jerusalem – Faculty of Law). Elin Waring (Yale University
– Law School), and Nancy Bode (Government of the State of Minnesota) published a major study on white collar crime in America.
Part of a larger program of research on white-collar crime supported by a grant from the United States Department of Justice's
National Institute of Justice, the study included "the more special forms associated with the abuse of political power [ ] or
abuse of financial power". The study was also published as a Hebrew University of Jerusalem Legal Research Paper
The research team noted that Jews were over-represented relative to their share of the U.S. population:
"With respect to religion, there is one clear finding. Although many in both white collar and common crime categories do not
claim a particular religious faith [ ] It would be a fair summary of our. data to say that, demographically speaking, white collar
offenders are predominantly middle-aged white males with an over-representation of Jews."
In 1991, David L. Weisburd published his study of Crimes of the Middle Classes: White-Collar Offenders in the Federal Courts,
Weisburd found that although Jews comprised only around 2% of the United States population, they contributed at least 9% of lower
category white-collar crimes (bank embezzlement, tax fraud and bank fraud), at least 15% of moderate category white-collar crimes
(mail fraud, false claims, and bribery), and at least 33% of high category white-collar crimes (antitrust and securities fraud).
Weisburg showed greater frequency of Jewish offenders at the top of the hierarchy of white collar crime. In Weisbug's sample of
financial crime in America, Jews were responsible for 23.9%.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:26 am
What I find most interesting is how Putin handles the Jews.
It is obvious that he is the one who saved the country of Russia from the looting of the 90s by the Russian-American Jewish
mafia. This is the most direct explanation for his demonisation in the West, his feat will never be forgiven, not even in history
books (a demon forever). Even to this day, for example in Syria, Putin's main confrontation is not against US then against the
Zionist Jews, whose principal tool is US. Yet, there is not a single anti-Semitic sentence that Putin ever uttered. Also, Putin
let the Jewish oligarchs who plundered Russia keep their money if they accepted the authority of the Russian state, kept employing
Russians and paying Russian taxes. But he openly confronted those who refused (Berezovsky, Khodorovsky etc). Furthermore, Putin
lets Israel bomb Syria under his protection to abandon. Finally, Putin is known in Russia as a great supporter of Jews and Israel,
almost a good friend of Nutty Yahoo.
Therefore, it appears to me that the Putin's principal strategy is to appeal to the honest Jewish majority to restrain the
criminal Jewish minority (including the criminally insane), to divide them instead of confronting them all as a group, which is
what the anti-Semitic Europeans have traditionally been doing. His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews.
I still do not know if his strategy will succeed in the long run, but it certainly is an interesting new approach (unless I do
not know history enough) to an ancient problem. It is almost funny how so many US people think that the problem with the nefarious
Jewish money power started with US, if they are even aware of it.
Cal , July 16, 2017 at 5:41 am
" His judo-technique is in using Jewish power to restrain the Jews. "
The Jews have no power without their uber Jew money men, most of whom are ardent Zionist.
And because they get some benefits from the lobbying heft of the Zionist control of congress they arent going to go against them.
In this 2015 tirade, Browder declared "Someone has to punch Putin in the nose" and urged "supplying arms to the Ukrainians
and putting troops, NATO troops, in all of the surrounding countries".
The choice of Mozgovaya as interviewer was significant to promote Browder with the Russian Jewish community abroad.
Born in the Soviet Union in 1979, Mozgovaya immigrated to Israel with her family in 1990. She became a correspondent for the
Israeli newspaper Yediot Ahronoth in 2000. Although working most of the time in Hebrew, her reports in Russian appeared in various
publications in Russia.
Mozgovaya covered the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, including interviews with President Victor Yushenko and his partner-rival
Yulia Timoshenko, as well as the Russian Mafia and Russian oligarchs. During the presidency of Vladimir Putin, Mozgovaya gave
one of the last interviews with the Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya. She interviewed Garry Kasparov, Edward Limonov, Boris
Berezovsky, Chechen exiles such as Ahmed Zakaev, and the widow of ex-KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko.
In 2008, Mozgovaya left Yedioth Ahronoth to become the Washington Bureau Chief for Haaretz newspaper in Washington, D.C.. She
was a frequent lecturer on Israel and Middle Eastern affairs at U.S. think-tanks. In 2013, Mozgovaya started working at the Voice
of America.
HIDE BEHIND , July 13, 2017 at 7:43 pm
Gramps was decended from an old Irish New England Yankee lineage and in my youth he always dragged me along when the town meetings
were held, so my ideas of American DEmocracy stem from that background, one of open participation.
The local newspapers had more social chit chat than political news of international or for that mstter State or Federal shenanigansbut
everu member in that far flung settled communit read them from front to back; ss a child I got to read the funny and sports pages
until Gramps got finidhed reading the "News Section, always the news first yhen the lesser BS when time allowed,this habit instilled
in me the sence of
priority.
Aftrr I had read his dection of paper he would talk with me,even being a yonker, in a serious but opinionated manner, of the Editorial
section which had local commentary letterd to the editor as large as somtimes too pages.
I wonder today at which section of papersf at all, is read by american public, and at how manyadults discuss importsn news worthy
tppics with their children.
At advent of TV we still had trustworthy journalist to finally be seen after years of but reading their columns or listening on
radios,almost tottaly all males but men of honesty and character, and worthy of trust.
They wrre a part of all social stratas, had lived real lives and yes most eere well educated but not the elitist thinking jrrks
who are no more than parrots repeating whatevrr a teleprompter or bias of their employers say to write.
Wrll back to Gramps and hid home spun wisdom: He alwsys ,and shoeed by example at those old and somrtimes boistrous town Halls,
that first you askef a question, thought about the answer, and then questioned the answer.
This made the one being question responsible for the words he spoke.
So those who have doubts by a presumed independent journalist, damn right they should question his motives, which in reality begin
to answer our unspoken questions we can no longer ask those boobs for bombs and political sychophants and their paymasters of
popular media outlets.
As one who likes effeciency in prodution one monitors data to spot trends and sny aberations bring questions so yes I note this
journalist deviation from the norms as well.
I can only question the why, by looking at data from surrounding trends in order to later be able to question his answers.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:07 am
Hide Behind – sounds like you had a smart grandpa, and someone who cared enough about you to talk things over with you (even
though he was opinionated). I try to talk things over with my kids, sometimes too much. They're known on occasion to say, "Okay,
enough. We're full." I wait a few days, and then fill them up some more! Ha.
Joe Tedesky , July 13, 2017 at 10:53 pm
Here's a thought; will letting go of Trump Jr's infraction cancel out a guilty verdict of Hillary Clinton's transgressions?
I keep hearing Hillary references while people defend Donald Trump Jr over his meeting with Russian Natalia Veselnitskaya.
My thinking started over how I keep hearing pundits speak to Trump Jr's 'intent'. Didn't Comey find Hillary impossible to prosecute
due to her lack of 'intent'? Actually I always thought that to be prosecuted under espionage charges, the law didn't need to prove
intent, but then again we are talking about Hillary here.
The more I keep hearing Trump defenders make mention of Hillary's deliberate mistakes, and the more I keep hearing Democrates
point to Donald Jr's opportunistic failures, the more similarity I see between the two rivals, and the more I see an agreed upon
truce ending up in a tie. Remember we live in a one party system with two wings.
Am I going down the wrong road here, or could forgiving Trump Jr allow Hillary to get a free get out of jail card?
F. G. Sanford , July 14, 2017 at 12:42 am
I've been saying all along, our government is just a big can of worms, and neither side can expose the other without opening
it. But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers like it's a game of chicken. My guess is, everybody is gonna get
a free pass. I read somewhere that Preet Bharara had the goods on a whole bunch of bankers, but he sat on it clear up to the election.
Then, he got fired. So much for draining the swamp. If they prosecute Hillary, it looks like a grudge match. If they prosecute
Junior, it looks like revenge. If they prosecute Lynch, it looks like racism. When you deal with a government this corrupt, everybody
looks innocent by comparison. I'm still betting nobody goes to jail, as long as the "deep state" thinks they have Trump under
control.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 1:29 am
It's like we are sitting on the top of a hill looking down at a bunch of little armies attacking each other, or something.
I'm really screwy, I have contemplated to if Petraues dropped a dime on himself for having a extra martial affair, just to
get out of the Benghazi mess. Just thought I'd tell you that for full disclosure.
When it comes to Hillary, does anyone remember how in the beginning of her email investigation she pointed to Colin Powell
setting precedent to use a private computer? That little snitch Hillary is always the one when caught to start pointing the finger
.she would never have lasted in the Mafia, but she's smart enough to know what works best in Washington DC.
I'm just starting to see the magic; get the goods on Trump Jr then make a deal with the new FBI director.
Okay go ahead and laugh, but before you do pass the popcorn, and let's see how this all plays out.
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
Joe
Lisa , July 14, 2017 at 4:22 am
"Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see."
Joe, where does this quote originate? Or is it a paraphrase?
I once had an American lecturer (political science) at the university, and he stressed the idea that we should not believe anything
we read or hear and only half of what we see. This was l-o-o-ng ago, in the 60's.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 10:59 am
The first time I ever heard that line, 'believe nothing of what you see', was a friend of mine said it after we watched Roberto
Clemente throw a third base runner out going towards home plate, as Robert threw the ball without a bounce to the catcher who
was standing up, from the deep right field corner of the field .oh those were the days.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 9:12 pm
JT,
Clemente had an unbelievable arm! The consummate baseball player I have family in western PA, an uncle your age in fact who remembers
Clemente well. Roberto also happened to be a great human being.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 9:56 pm
I got loss at Forbes Field. I was seven years old, it was 1957. I got separated from my older cousin, we got in for 50 cents
to sit in the left field bleachers. Like I said I loss my older cousin so I walked, and walked, and just about the time I wanted
my mum the most I saw daylight. I followed the daylight out of the big garage door, and I was standing within a foot of this long
white foul line. All of a sudden this Black guy started yelling at me in somekind of broken English to, 'get off the field, get
out of here'. Then I felt a field ushers hand grab my shoulder, and as I turned I saw my cousin standing on the fan side of the
right field side of the field. The usher picked me up and threw me over to my cousin, with a warning for him to keep his eye on
me. That Black baseball player was a young rookie who was recently just drafted from the then Brooklyn Dodgers .#21 Roberto Clemente.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:12 pm
You were a charmed boy and now you are a charmed man. Great story life is a Field of Dreams sometimes.
Zachary Smith , July 15, 2017 at 9:00 pm
Believe half of what you hear, and nothing of what you see.
My introduction to this had the wording the other way around:
"Don't believe anything you hear and only half of what you see."
This was because the workplace was saturated with rumors, and unfortunately there was a practice of management and union representatives
"play-acting" for their audience. So what you "saw" was as likely as not a little theatrical production with no real meaning whatever.
The two fellows shouting at each other might well be laughing about it over a cup of coffee an hour later.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 am
Sanford – "But insiders on both sides are flashing their can openers " That's funny writing.
Gregory Herr , July 14, 2017 at 10:20 pm
yessir, love it
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:41 am
Absolutely, one of the best political metaphors ever (unfortunately works in English language only).
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:19 pm
BTW, they are flashing at each other not only can openers then also jail cells and grassy knolls these days. But the can openers
would still be most scary.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 2:13 am
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries, like binary options,
have been allowed to flourish here.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Despite his service as a useful idiot propagating the Magnitsky Myth, Bharara discovered that for Russian Jewish oligarchs,
criminals and scam artists, the motto is "Nikogda ne zabyt'!" Perhaps more recognizable by the German phrase: "Niemals vergessen!"
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 3:00 am
Abe – wow, what a story. I guess it's lucrative to "never forget"! Bandits.
National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
NCJRS Abstract
The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the
NCJRS Abstracts Database. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary
loans, or in a local library.
NCJ Number: NCJ 006180
Title: CRIMINALITY AMONG JEWS – AN OVERVIEW
United States of America
Journal: ISSUES IN CRIMINOLOGY Volume:6 Issue:2 Dated:(SUMMER 1971) Pages:1-39
Date Published: 1971
Page Count: 15
.
Abstract: THE CONCLUSION OF MOST STUDIES IS THAT JEWS HAVE A LOW CRIME RATE. IT IS LOWER THAN THAT OF NON-JEWS TAKEN AS A WHOLE,
LOWER THAN THAT OF OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS,
HOWEVER, THE JEWISH CRIME RATE TENDS TO BE HIGHER THAN THAT OF NONJEWS AND OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS FOR WHITE-COLLAR OFFENSES,
THAT IS, COMMERCIAL OR COMMERCIALLY RELATED CRIMES, SUCH AS FRAUD, FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCY, AND EMBEZZLEMENT.
Index Term(s): Behavioral and Social Sciences ; Adult offenders ; Minorities ; Behavioral science research ; Offender classification
Country: United States of America
Language: English
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 4:21 pm
Cal – that does not surprise me at all. Of course they would be where the money is, and once you have money, you get nothing
but the best defense. "I've got time and money on my side. Go ahead and take me to court. I'll string this thing along and it'll
cost you a fortune. So let's deal. I'm good with a fine."
A rap on the knuckles, a fine, and no court case, no discovery of the truth that the people can see. Of course they'd be there.
That IS the only place to be if you want to be a true criminal.
Skip Scott , July 15, 2017 at 1:57 pm
Thanks again Abe, you are a wealth of information. I think you have to allow for anyone to make a mistake, and Bharara has
done a lot of good.
Longtime Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz and his team have directed their grievance at Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law and senior
White House adviser.
Citing a person familiar with Trump's legal team, The Times said Kasowitz has bristled at Kushner's "whispering in the president's
ear" about stories on the Russia investigation without telling Kasowitz and his team.
The Times' source said the attorneys, who were hired as private counsel to Trump in light of the Russia investigation, view Kushner
"as an obstacle and a freelancer" motivated to protect himself over over Trump. The lawyers reportedly told colleagues the work
environment among Trump's inner circle was untenable, The Times said, suggesting Kasowitz could resign
Second
Who thinks Jared works for Trump? I don't.
Jared works for his father Charles Kushner, the former jail bird who hired prostitutes to blackmail his brother in law into not
testifying against him. Jared spent every weekend his father was in prison visiting him.,,they are inseparable.
Third
So what is Jared doing in his WH position to help his father and his failing RE empire?
Trying to get loans from China, Russia, Qatar,Qatar
And why Is Robert Mueller Probing Jared Kushner's Finances?
Because of this no doubt:..seeking a loan for the Kushners from a Russian bank.
The White House and the bank have offered differing accounts of the Kushner-Gorkov sit-down. While the White House said Kushner
met Gorkov and other foreign representatives as a transition official to "help advance the president's foreign policy goals."
Vnesheconombank, also known as VEB, said it was part of talks with business leaders about the bank's development strategy.
It said Kushner was representing Kushner companies, his family real estate empire.
Jared Kushner 'tried and failed to get a $500m loan from Qatar before http://www.independent.co.uk › News › World › Americas › US politics
2 days ago –
Jared Kushner tried and failed to secure a $500m loan from one of Qatar's richest businessmen, before pushing his father-in-law
to toe a hard line with the country, it has been alleged. This intersection between Mr Kushner's real estate dealings and his
father-in-law's
The Kushners are about to lose their shirts..unless one of those foreign country's banks gives them the money.
At Kushners' Flagship Building, Mounting Debt and a Foundered Deal https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/03/nyregion/kushner-companies-666-fifth-avenue.html
The Fifth Avenue skyscraper was supposed to be the Kushner Companies' flagship in the heart of Manhattan -- a record-setting $1.8
billion souvenir proclaiming that the New Jersey developers Charles Kushner and his son Jared were playing in the big leagues.
And while it has been a visible symbol of their status, it has also it has also been a financial headache almost from the start.
On Wednesday, the Kushners announced that talks had broken off with a Chinese financial conglomerate for a deal worth billions
to redevelop the 41-story tower, at 666 Fifth Avenue, into a flashy 80-story ultraluxury skyscraper comprising a chic retail mall,
a hotel and high-priced condominiums"
Get these cockroaches out of the WH please.,,,Jared and his sister are running around the world trying to get money in exchange
for giving them something from the Trump WH.
The NYC skyline displays 666 in really really really HUGE !!!! numbers. Perhaps the USA government as Cheney announced has
gone to the very very very DARK side.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 2:16 pm
Yea 666 probably isn't a coincidence .lol
Chris Kinder , July 14, 2017 at 12:15 am
What I think most comments overlook here is the following: the US is the primary imperialist aggressor in the world today,
and Russia, though it is an imperialist competitor, is much weaker and is generally losing ground. Early on, the US promised that
NATO would not be extended into Eastern Europe, but now look at what's happened: not only does the US have NATO allies and and
missiles in Eastern Europe, but it also engineered a coup against a pro-Russian regime in Ukraine, and is now trying to drive
Russia out of Eastern Ukraine, as in Crimea and the Donbass and other areas of Eastern Ukraine, which are basically Russian going
back more than a century. Putin is pretty mild compered to the US' aggressive stance. That's number one.
Number two is that the current anti-Russian hysteria in the US is all about maintaining the same war-mongering stance against
Russia that existed in the cold war, and also about washing clean the Democratic Party leadership's crimes in the last election.
Did the Russians hack the election? Maybe they tried, but the point is that what was exposed–the emails etc–were true information!
They show that the DNC worked to deprive Bernie Sanders of the nomination, and hide crimes of the Clintons'! These exposures,
not any Russian connection to the exposures, are what really lost Hillary the election.
So, what is going on here? The Democrats are trying to hide their many transgressions behind an anti-Russian scare, why? Because
it is working, and because it fits in with US imperialist anti-Russian aims which span the entire post-war period, and continue
today. And because it might help get Trump impeached. I would not mind that result one bit, but the Democrats are no alternative:
that has been shown to be true over and over again.
This is all part of the US attempt to be the dominant imperialist power in the world–something which it has pursued since the
end of the last world war, and something which both Democrats and Republicans–ie, the US ruling class behind them–are committed
to. Revolutionaries say: the main enemy is at home, and that is what I say now. That is no endorsement of Russian imperialism,
but a rejection of all imperialism and the capitalist exploitative system that gives rise to it.
Thanks for your attention -- Chris Kinder
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:58 am
Chris – good post. Thanks.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 11:35 am
Chris, I think most commenters here are aware of everything you summarized above, but we just don't put all that in each individual
post.
Paranam Kid , July 14, 2017 at 6:40 am
It is ironic that Browder on his website describes himself as running a battle against corporate corruption in Russia, and
there is a quote by Walter Isaacson: "Bill Browder is an amazing moral crusader".
http://www.billbrowder.com/bio
HIDE BEHIND , July 14, 2017 at 10:02 am
One cannot talk of Russian monry laundering in US without exposing the Jewish Israeli and many AIPAC connections.
I studied not so much the Jewish Orthodoxy but mainly the evolution of noth their outlook upon G.. but also how those who do not
believe in a G.. and still keep their cultural cohesiveness
The largest money laundering group in US is
both Jewish and Israeli, and while helping those of their cultural similarities, their ecpertise goes. Very deep in Eastern U.S.
politics and especially strong in all commercial real estate, funding, setting up bribes to permitting officials,contractors and
owners of construvtion firms.
Financials some quite large are within this Jew/Israel connections, as all they who offshore need those proper connections to
do so. take bribes need the funding cleaned and
flow out through very large tax free Jewish Charity Orgd, the largest ones are those of Orthodox.
GOV Christie years ago headed the largest sting operation to try and uproot what at that time he believed was just statewide tax
fraud and laundering operations, many odd cash flows into political party hacks running for evrry gov position electefd or appointed.
Catchng a member of one of the most influential Orthofox familys mrmbers, that member rolled on many many indivifuals of his own
culture.
It was only when Vhristies investigative team began turning up far larger cases of laundering and political donations thst msinly
centered in NY Stste and City, fid he then find out howuch power this grouping had.
Soon darn near every AIPAC aided elected politico from city state and rspecially Congress was warning him to end investigation.
Which he did.
His reward was for his fat ass to be funded for a run towards US Presidency, without any visibly open opposition by that cultural
grouping.
No it is not odd for Jewery to charge goyim usury or to aid in political schemes that advance their groups aims.
One thing to remenber by the Bible thumpers who delay any talks of Israel ; Christian Zionist, is that to be of their culture
one does not have to believe in G.
There are a few excellent books written about early days Jewish immigrant Pre Irish andblre Sicilian mafias.
The Jewish one remainst to this day but are as well orgNized as the untold history of what is known as "The Southern mafia.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 1:55 pm
Hide Behind – fascinating! I guess if we ever knew half of what goes on behind the scenes, we'd be shocked. We only ever know
things like this exist when people like you enlighten us, or when there's a blockbuster movie about it. Thanks.
Deborah Andrew , July 14, 2017 at 10:03 am
With great respect and appreciation for your writing about the current unsubstantiated conversations/writing about 'Russia-gate'
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts. Analysis and opinions,
that include the facts, may differ. However, it is the readers who will evaluate the varied analysis and opinions when they include
all the facts known. I raise this question, as it seems to me that we have a binary approach to our thinking and decision making.
Something is either good or bad, this or that. Sides are taken. Labels are added (such as conservative and progressive). Would
we not be wiser and would our decision making not be wiser if it were based on a set of principles? My own preference: the precautionary
principle and the principle of do no harm. I am suggesting that we abandon the phrase and notion of the 'other side of the story'
and replace it with: based on the facts now known, or, based on all the facts revealed to date or, until more facts are revealed
it appears
I would ask if 'the other side of a story' is really what we want or, is it that we want all the facts.
Replying to a question with another question isn't really good form, but given my knowledge level of this case I can see no
alternative.
How do you propose to determine the "facts" when virtually none of the characters involved in the affair appear trustworthy?
Also, there is a lot of evidence (displayed by Mr. Parry) that another set of "characters" we call the Mainstream Media are
extremely biased and one-sided with their coverage of the story.
Again – Where am I going to find those "facts" you speak of?
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 2:52 am
Spot on.
backwardsevolution , July 14, 2017 at 2:02 pm
Deborah Andrew – good comment, but the problem is that we never seem to get "the other side of the story" from the MSM. You
are right in pointing out that "the other side of the story" probably isn't ALL there is (as nothing is completely black and white),
but at least it's something. The only way we can ever get to the truth is to put the facts together and question them, but how
are you going to do that when the facts are kept away from us?
It can be very frustrating, can't it, Deborah? Cheers.
Cal , July 14, 2017 at 8:52 pm
Nice comment.
None of us can know the exact truth of anything we ourselves haven't seen or been involved in. The best we can do is try to
find trusted sources, be objective, analytical and compare different stories and known the backgrounds and possible agendas of
the people involved in a issue or story.
We can use some clues to help us cull thru what we hear and read.
Twenty-Five Rules of Disinformation
Note: The first rule and last five (or six, depending on situation) rules are generally not directly within the ability of
the traditional disinfo artist to apply. These rules are generally used more directly by those at the leadership, key players,
or planning level of the criminal conspiracy or conspiracy to cover up.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public
figure, news anchor, etc. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the
topic as being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the 'How dare you!' gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors
and wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well. This method which works especially
well with a silent press, because the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such 'arguable rumors'. If you can
associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify it a 'wild rumor' from a 'bunch of kids on the Internet' which
can have no basis in fact.
4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself
look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the
opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy
them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real
issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary 'attack the messenger' ploy, though
other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as 'kooks', 'right-wing', 'liberal',
'left-wing', 'terrorists', 'conspiracy buffs', 'radicals', 'militia', 'racists', 'religious fanatics', 'sexual deviates', and
so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before
an answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor environments
where a steady stream of new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism, reasoning -- simply make an accusation
or other attack, never discussing issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify the opponent's viewpoint.
7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal
agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough 'jargon'
and 'minutia' to illustrate you are 'one who knows', and simply say it isn't so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely
why or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have
any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for
maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A derivative of the straw man -- usually, in any large-scale matter of high visibility,
someone will make charges early on which can be or were already easily dealt with – a kind of investment for the future should
the matter not be so easily contained.) Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man issue and have it dealt
with early on as part of the initial contingency plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can
usually then be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current issues
-- so much the better where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the 'high road' and 'confess'
with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it
all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, 'just isn't so.' Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later,
and even publicly 'call for an end to the nonsense' because you have already 'done the right thing.' Done properly, this can garner
sympathy and respect for 'coming clean' and 'owning up' to your mistakes without addressing more serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players
and events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to lose
interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards or with an apparent deductive logic which
forbears any actual material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which
works best with issues qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions
in place.
16. Vanish evidence and witnesses. If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.
17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion
with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well
with companions who can 'argue' with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more
key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them
into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat
less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses
the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how 'sensitive they are to criticism.'
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the 'play dumb' rule. Regardless of what
material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for
the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed
or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically
deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made
by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations
-- as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies
for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened, the evidence and testimony are required to
be secret when properly handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a Grand Jury hears no useful
evidence and that the evidence is sealed and unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict is achieved, the
matter can be considered officially closed. Usually, this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be
used to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim.
22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to
forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you
must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted
media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution
so that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction
of theircharacter by release of blackmail information, or merely by destroying them financially, emotionally, or severely damaging
their health.
25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to
avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen. .
Note: There are other ways to attack truth, but these listed are the most common, and others are likely derivatives of these.
In the end, you can usually spot the professional disinfo players by one or more of seven (now 8) distinct traits:
Eight Traits of the Disinformationalist
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000 All rights reserved
(Revised April 2000 – formerly SEVEN Traits)
1) Avoidance. They never actually discuss issues head-on or provide constructive input, generally avoiding citation of references
or credentials. Rather, they merely imply this, that, and the other. Virtually everything about their presentation implies their
authority and expert knowledge in the matter without any further justification for credibility.
2) Selectivity. They tend to pick and choose opponents carefully, either applying the hit-and-run approach against mere commentators
supportive of opponents, or focusing heavier attacks on key opponents who are known to directly address issues. .
3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior
record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the
topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.
4) Teamwork. They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally
in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved.
Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute
opponent presentation strength.
5) Anti-conspiratorial. They almost always have disdain for 'conspiracy theorists' and, usually, for those who in any way believe
JFK was not killed by LHO. Ask yourself why, if they hold such disdain for conspiracy theorists, do they focus on defending a
single topic discussed in a NG focusing on conspiracies? One might think they would either be trying to make fools of everyone
on every topic, or simply ignore the group they hold in such disdain.Or, one might more rightly conclude they have an ulterior
motive for their actions in going out of their way to focus as they do.
6) Artificial Emotions. An odd kind of 'artificial' emotionalism and an unusually thick skin -- an ability to persevere and
persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. You might have outright rage and indignation one moment,
ho-hum the next, and more anger later -- an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will
deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms
of how obvious it is that they play that game -- where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek
to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
7) Inconsistent. There is also a tendency to make mistakes which betray their true self/motives. This may stem from not really
knowing their topic, or it may be somewhat 'freudian', so to speak, in that perhaps they really root for the side of truth deep
within.
8) BONUS TRAIT: Time Constant. Wth respect to News Groups, is the response time factor. There are three ways this can be seen
to work, especially when the government or other empowered player is involved in a cover up operation:
1) ANY NG posting by a targeted proponent for truth can result in an IMMEDIATE response. The government and other empowered players
can afford to pay people to sit there and watch for an opportunity to do some damage. SINCE DISINFO IN A NG ONLY WORKS IF THE
READER SEES IT – FAST RESPONSE IS CALLED FOR, or the visitor may be swayed towards truth.
2) When dealing in more direct ways with a disinformationalist, such as email, DELAY IS CALLED FOR – there will usually be a minimum
of a 48-72 hour delay. This allows a sit-down team discussion on response strategy for best effect, and even enough time to 'get
permission' or instruction from a formal chain of command.
3) In the NG example 1) above, it will often ALSO be seen that bigger guns are drawn and fired after the same 48-72 hours delay
– the team approach in play. This is especially true when the targeted truth seeker or their comments are considered more important
with respect to potential to reveal truth. Thus, a serious truth sayer will be attacked twice for the same sin.
Michael Kenny , July 14, 2017 at 11:22 am
I don't really see Mr Parry's point. The banning of Nekrasov's film isn't proof of the accuracy of its contents and even less
does it prove that anything that runs counter to Nekrasov's argument is false. Nor does proving that a mainstream meida story
is false prove that an internet story saying the opposite is true. "A calls B a liar. B proves that A is a liar. That proves that
B is truthful." Not very logical! What seems to be established is that the lawyer in question represents a Russian-owned company,
a money-laundering prosecution against which was settled last May on the basis of what the company called a "surprise" offer from
prosecutors that was "too good to refuse". This "Russian government attorney" (dixit Goldstone) had information concerning illegal
campaign contributions to the Democratic National Committee. Trump Jr jumped at it and it makes no difference whether he was tricked
or even whether he actually got anything, his intent was clear. In addition DNC "dirt" did indeed appear on the internet via Wikileaks,
just as "dirt" appeared in the French election. MacronLeaks proves Russiagate and "Juniorgate" confirms MacronLeaks. The question
now is did Trump, as president, intervene to bring about this "too good to refuse" offer? That question cannot just be written
off with the "no evidence" argument.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 1:40 pm
God, you are persistent if nothing else. Keep repeating the same lie until it is taken as true, just like the MSM. You say
that Russia-gate, Macron leaks, etc can't be written off with the "no evidence" argument (how is that logical?), and then you
trash a film you haven't even seen because it doesn't fit your narrative. Maybe some evidence is provided in the film, did you
consider that possibility? That fact that Nekrasov started out to make a pro Broder film, and then switched sides, leads me to
believe he found some disturbing evidence. And if you look into Nekrasov you will find that he is no fan of Putin, so one has
to wonder what his motive is if he is lying.
I am wondering if you ever look back at previous posts, because you never reply to a rebuttal. If you did, you would see that
you are almost universally seen by the commenters here as a troll. If you are being paid, I suppose it might not matter much to
you. However, your employer should look for someone with more intelligent arguments. He is wasting his money on you.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 9:27 pm
Propaganda trolls attempt to trash the information space by dismissing, distracting, diverting, denying, deceiving and distorting
the facts.
The trolls aim at confusing rather than convincing the audience.
The tag team troll performance of "Michael Kenny" and "David" is accompanied by loud declarations that they have "logic" on
their side and "evidence" somewhere. Then they shriek that they're being "censored".
Propaganda trolls target the comments section of independent investigative journalism sites like Consortium News, typically
showing up when articles discuss the West's "regime change" wars and deception operations.
Pro-Israel Hasbara propaganda trolls also strive to discredit websites, articles, and videos critical of Israel and Zionism.
Hasbara smear tactics have intensified due to increasing Israeli threats of military aggression, Israeli collusion with the United
States in "regime change" projects from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, and Israeli links to international organized crime
and terrorism in Syria.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:04 am
Gee Abe, you are a magician (and I thought that you only quote excellent articles). Short and sharp.
Abe , July 15, 2017 at 4:15 pm
When they have a hard time selling that they're being "censored" (after more than a dozen comments), trolls complain that they're
being "dismissed" and "invalidated" by "hostile voices".
exiled off mainstreet , July 14, 2017 at 1:54 pm
Aaron Kesel, in Activistpost documents the links between Veselnitskaya and Fusion GPS, the company engaged by the Clintons
to prepare the defamatory Christopher Steele Dossier against Trump later used by Comey to help gin up the Russian influence conspiracy
theory. In the article, it is true the GPS connection may have involved her lobbying efforts to overturn the Magnitsky law, not
the dossier, but it is also interesting that she is on record as anti-Trump and having associations with Clinton democrats. Though
it may have been part of the beginnings of a conspiracy, the conspiracy may have developed later and the meeting became something
they related back to to bolster this fraudulent dangerous initiative.
mike k , July 14, 2017 at 2:01 pm
I think as you say Skip that most on this blog have seen through Michael Kenny's stuff. Nobody's buying it. He's harmless.
If he's here on his own dime, if we don't feed him, he will get bored and go away. If he's being payed, he may persist, but so
what. Sometimes I check the MSM just to see what the propaganda line is. Kenny is like that; his shallow arguments tell me what
we must counter to wake people up.
Skip Scott , July 14, 2017 at 5:51 pm
Yeah mike k, I know you're right. I don't know why I let the guy get under my skin. Perhaps it's because he never responds
to a rebuttal.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 3:14 am
Then you would have to waste more time rebutting the (equally empty) rebuttal.
The second thing is that many trolls suffer from DID, that is the Dissociative Identity Disorder, aka sock puppetry. There
is a bit of similarity in argument between David and Michael and HAWKINS, only one of them rebuts quite often.
Another excellent article! I wrote a very detailed
blog post
in which I methodically take apart the latest "revelation" about Donald Trump Jr.'s emails. I talk a lot about the Magnitsky
Act, which is very relevant to this whole story.
Joe Tedesky , July 14, 2017 at 4:43 pm
I always like reading your articles Philippe, you have a real talent. Maybe read what I wrote above, but I'm sensing this Trump
Jr affair will help Hillary more than anything, to give her a reprieve from any further FBI investigations. I mean somehow, I'm
sure by Hillary's standards and desires, that this whole crazy investigation thing has to end. So, would it not seem reasonable
to believe that by allowing Donald Jr to be taken off the hook, that Hillary likewise will enjoy the taste of forgiveness?
Tell me if you think this Donald Trump Jr scandal could lead to this Joe
PS if so this could be a good next article to write there I go telling the band what to play, but seriously if this Russian
conclusion episode goes on much longer, could you not see a grand bargain and a deal being made?
Thanks for the compliment, I'm glad you like the blog. I wasn't under the impression that Clinton was under any particular
danger from the Justice Department, but even if she was, she doesn't have the power to stop this Trump/Russia collusion nonsense
because it's pushed by a lot of people that have nothing to do with her except for the fact that they would have preferred her
to win.
Abe , July 14, 2017 at 6:48 pm
Excellent summary and analysis, Philippe. Key observation:
"as even the New York Times admits, there is no evidence that Natalia Veselnitskaya, the lawyer who met Donald Trump Jr., Jared
Kushner and Paul Manafort for 20-30 minutes on 9 June 2016, provided any such information during that meeting. Donald Trump Jr.
said that, although he asked her about it, she didn't give them anything on Clinton, but talked to him about the Magnitsky Act
and Russia's decision to block adoption by American couples in retaliation. Of course, if we just had his word, we'd have no particularly
good reason to believe him. But the fact remains that no documents of the sort described in Goldstone's ridiculous email ever
surfaced during the campaign, which makes what he is saying about how the meeting went down pretty convincing, at least on this
specific point. It should be noted that Donald Trump Jr. has offered to testify under oath about anything related to this meeting.
Moreover, he also said during the interview he gave to Sean Hannity that there was no follow-up to this meeting, which is unlikely
to be a lie since he must know that, given the hysteria about this meeting, it would come out. He may not be the brightest guy
in the world, but surely he or at least the people who advised him before that interview are not that stupid."
Your own necpluribus article was one of the best I've seen summarising the whole controversy, and your exhaustive responses
to the pro-deep state critics was edifying. I am now convinced that your view of Veselnitskaya's role in the affair and the nature
her connections to the dossier drafting company GPS being based on their unrelated work on the magnitsky law is accurate.
"Bill Browder, born into a notable Jewish family in Chicago, is the grandson of Earl Browder, the former leader of the Communist
Party USA,[2] and the son of Eva (Tislowitz) and Felix Browder, a mathematician. He grew up in Chicago, Illinois, and attended
the University of Chicago where he studied economics. He received an MBA from Stanford Business School[3] in 1989 where his classmates
included Gary Kremen and Rich Kelley. In 1998, Browder gave up his US citizenship and became a British citizen.[4] Prior to setting
up Hermitage, Browder worked in the Eastern European practice of the Boston Consulting Group[5] in London and managed the Russian
proprietary investments desk at Salomon Brothers.[6]"
Rake , July 15, 2017 at 9:13 am
Successfully keeping a salient argument from being heard is scary, given the social media and alternative media players who
are all ripe to uncover a bombshell. Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks.
"Sy Hersh needs to convince Nekrasov to get his documentary to WkiLeaks."
Agree.
P. Clark , July 15, 2017 at 12:01 pm
When Trump suggested that a Mexican-American judge might be biased because of this ethnicity the media said this was racist.
Yet these same outlets like the New York Times are now routinely questioning Russian-American loyalty because of their ethnicity.
As usual a ridiculous double standard. Basically the assumption is all Russians are bad. We didn't even have this during the cold
war.
Cal , July 15, 2017 at 8:10 pm
Yes indeed P. Clark .that kind or hypocrisy makes my head explode!
MichaelAngeloRaphaelo , July 15, 2017 at 12:17 pm
Enough's Enough
STOP DNC/DEMs
#CryBabyFakeNewsBS
Support Duly ELECTED
@POTUS @realDonaldTrump
#BoycottFakeNewsSponsors
#DrainTheSwamp
#MAGA
Wow, I just learned via this article that in US Nekrasov is labeled as "pro-Kremlin" by WaPo. That's just too funny. He's in
a relationship with a Finnish MEP Heidi Hautala, who is very well known for her anti-Russia mentality. Nekrasov is defenetly anti-Kremlin
if something. He was supposed to make an anti-Kremlin documentary, but the facts turned out to be different than he thought, but
still finished his documentary.
The lengths to which the Neo Conservative War Cabal will go to destroy freedom of speech and access to alternative news sources
underscores that the United States is becoming an Orwellian agitation-propaganda police state equally dedicated to igniting World
War III for Netanyahu, the Central Banks, our Wahhabic Petrodollar Partners, and a pipeline consortium or two. The Old American
Republic is dead.
Roy G Biv , July 15, 2017 at 4:38 pm
Interesting to note that each and everyone of David's comments were bleached from this page. Looks like he was right about
the censorship. Sad.
Duly noted Abe. But you should adhere to the first part of the statement that you somehow forgot to include:
From Editor Robert Parry: At Consortiumnews, we welcome substantive comments about our articles, but comments should avoid
abusive language toward other commenters or our writers, racial or religious slurs (including anti-Semitism and Islamophobia),
and allegations that are unsupported by facts.
Kiza , July 15, 2017 at 6:06 pm
My favorite was David's claim that he contributed to this zine whilst it was publishing articles not to his liking (/sarc).
I kindly reminded him that people pay much more money to have publishing the way they like it – for example how much Bezos paid
for Washington Post, or Omidyar to establish The Intercept.
Except for such funny component, David's comments were totally substance free and useless. Nothing lost with bleaching.
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:44 am
You're practicing disinformation. He actually said he contributed early on and had problems with the recent course of the CN
trajectory. Censorship is cowardly.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm
Consortium News welcomes substantive comments.
"David" was presenting allegations unsupported by facts and disrupting on-topic discussion.
Violations of CN comment policy are taken down by the moderator. Period. It has nothing to do with "censorship".
Stop practicing disinformation and spin, "Roy G Biv".
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:57 pm
I stopped contributing after the unintellectual dismissal of scientific 911 truthers. And it's easy for you to paint over my
comments as they have been scrubbed. There was plenty of useful substance, it just ran against the tide. Sorry you didn't appreciate
it the contrary viewpoint or have the curiosity to read the backstory.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 5:02 pm
The cowardly claim of "censorship".
The typical troll whine is that their "contrary viewpoint" was "dismissed" merely because it "ran against the tide".
No. Your allegations were unsupported by facts. They still are.
Martyrdom is just another troll tactic.
dub , July 15, 2017 at 9:44 pm
torrent for the film?
Roy G Biv , July 16, 2017 at 5:56 am
Here is the pdf of the legal brief about the Magnitsky film submitted by Senator Grassly to Homeland Security Chief. Interesting
read and casts doubt on the claims made in the film, refutes several claims actually. Skip past Chuck Grassly's first two page
intro to get to the meat of it. If you are serious about a debate on the merits of the case, this is essential reading.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the brief.
But forget the spin from "Roy G Biv" because the brief actually refutes nothing about Andrei Nekrasov's film.
It simply notes that the Russian government was understandably concerned about "unscrupulous swindler" and "sleazy crook" William
Browder.
After your finished reading the brief, try to remember any time when Congress dared to examine a lobbying campaign undertaken
on behalf of Israeli (which is to say, predominantly Russian Jewish) interests, the circumstances surrounding a pro-Israel lobbying
effort and the potential FARA violations involved. or the background of a Jewish "Russian immigrant".
Note on page 3 of the cover letter the CC to The Honorable Dianne Feinstein, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on the
Judiciary. Feinstein was born Dianne Emiel Goldman in San Francisco, to Betty (née Rosenburg), a former model, and Leon Goldman,
a surgeon. Feinstein's paternal grandparents were Jewish immigrants from Poland. Her maternal grandparents, the Rosenburg family,
were from Saint Petersburg, Russia. While they were of German-Jewish ancestry, they practiced the Russian Orthodox faith as was
required for Jews residing in Saint Petersburg.
In 1980, Feinstein married Richard C. Blum, an investment banker. In 2003, Feinstein was ranked the fifth-wealthiest senator,
with an estimated net worth of US$26 million. By 2005 her net worth had increased to between US$43 million and US$99 million.
Like the rest of Congress, Feinstein knows the "right way" to vote.
David , July 16, 2017 at 1:50 pm
So you're saying because a Jew Senator was CC'd it invalidates the information? Read the first page again. The Chairman of
the Senate Judiciary Committee is obligated to CC these submissions to the ranking member of the Committee, Jew heritage or not.
Misinformation and disinformation from you Abe, or generously, maybe lazy reading. The italicized unscrupulous swindler and sleazy
crook comments were quoting the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov after the Washington screening of Nekrasov's film and demonstrating
Russia's intentions to discredit Browder. You are practiced at the art of deception. Hopefully readers will simply look for themselves.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 2:11 pm
Ah, comrade "David". We see you're back muttering about "disinformation" using your "own name".
My statements about Senator Feinstein are entirely supported by facts. You really should look into that.
Also, please note that quotation marks are not italics.
And please note that the Russian Foreign Minister is legally authorized to present the view of the Russian government.
Browder is pretty effective at discrediting himself. He simply has to open his mouth.
I encourage readers to look for themselves, and not simply take the word of one Browder's sockpuppets.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:55 pm
It won't last papushka. Every post and pended moderated post was scrubbed yesterday, to the cheers of you and your mean spirited
friends. But truth is truth and should be defended. So to the point, I reread the Judiciary Committee linked document, and the
items you specified are in italics, because the report is quoting Lavrov's comments to a Moscow news paper and "another paper"
as evidence of Russia's efforts to undermine the credibility and standing of Browder. This is hardly obscure. It's plain as day
if you just read it.
David , July 16, 2017 at 2:59 pm
Also Abe, before I get deleted again, I don't question any of you geneological description of Feinstein. I merely pointed out
that she is the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, and it is normal for the Chairman of the Committee (Republican)
to CC the ranking member. Unless of course it is Devin Nunes, then fairness and tradition goes out the window.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:01 pm
It's plain as day, "David" or whatever other name you're trolling under, that you're here to loudly "defend" the "credibility"
and "standing" of William Browder.
Sorry, but you're going to have to "defend" Browder with something other than your usual innuendo, blather about 9-11, and
slurs against RP.
Otherwise it will be recognized for what it is, repeated violation of CN comment policy, and taken down by the moderator again.
Good luck to any troll who wants to "defend" Browder's record.
But you're gonna have to earn your pay with something other than your signature unsupported allegations, 9-11 diversions, and
the "non-Jewish Russian haters gonna hate" propaganda shtick.
David , July 16, 2017 at 5:07 pm
I wish you would stop with the name calling. I am not a troll. I have been trying to make simple rational points. You respond
by calling me names and wholly ignoring and/or misrepresenting and obfuscating easily verifiable facts. I suspect you are the
moderator of this page, and if so am surprised by your consistent negative references to Jews. I'm not Jewish but you're really
over the top. Of course you have many friends here so you get little push back, but I really hope you are not Bob or Sam.
Anonymous , July 16, 2017 at 10:26 am
We can see that it was what can be considered to be a Complex situation, where it was said that someone had Dirt on Hillary
Clinton, but there was No collusion and there was No attempted collusion, but there was Patriotism and Concern for Others during
a Perplexing situation.
This is because of what is Known as Arkancide, and which is associated with some People who say they have Dirt on the Clintons.
The Obvious and Humane thing to do was to arrange to meet the Russian Lawyer, who it was Alleged to have Dirt on Hillary Clinton,
regardless of any possible Alleged Electoral advantage against Hillary Clinton, and until further information, there may have
been some National Security Concerns, because it was Known that Hillary Clinton committed Espionage with Top Secret Information
on her Unauthorized, Clandestine, Secret Email Server, and the Obvious cover up by the Department of Justice and the FBI, and
so it was with this background that this Complex situation had to be dealt with.
This is because there is Greater Protection for a Person who has Dirt or Alleged Dirt on the Clintons, if that Information
is share with other People.
This is because it is a Complete Waste of time to go to the Authorities, because they will Not do anything against Clinton
Crimes, and a former Haitian Government Official was found dead only days before he was to give Testimony regarding the Clinton
Foundation.
We saw this with Seth Rich, where the Police Videos has been withheld, and we have seen the Obstruction in investigating that
Crime.
The message to Leakers is that Seth Rich was taken to hospital and Treated and was on his way to Fully Recovering, but he died
in hospital, and those who were thinking of Leaking Understood the message from that.
There was Also concern for Rob Goldstone, who Alleged that the Russian Lawyer had Dirt on the Clintons.
We Know that is is said Goldstone that he did Not want to hear what was said at the meeting.
This is because Goldstone wanted associates of Candidate Donald Trump to Know that he did Not know what was said at that meeting.
We now Know that the meeting was a set up to Improperly obtain a FISA Warrant, which was Requested in June of 2016, and that
is same the month and the year as the meeting that the Russian Lawyer attended.
There was what was an Unusual granting of a Special Visa so that the Russian Lawyer could attend that set up, which was Improperly
Used to Request a FISA Warrant in order to Improperly Spy on an Opposition Political Candidate in order to Improperly gain an
Electoral advantage in an Undemocratic manner, because if anything wrong was intended by Associates of Candidate Donald Trump,
then there were enough People in that meeting who were the Equivalent of Establishment Democrats and Establishment Republicans,
because we Know that after that meeting, that the husband of the former Florida chair of the Trump campaign obtained a front row
seat to a June 2016 House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing for the Russian Lawyer.
There are Americans who consider that the 2 Major Political Party Tyranny has Betrayed the Constitution and the Principles
of Democracy, because they oppose President Donald Trump's Election Integrity Commission, because they think that the Establishment
Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupted Puppets of the Shadow Regime.
We Know from Senator Sanders, that if Americans want a Political Revolution, then they will need their own Political Party.
There are Americans who think that a Group of Democratic Party Voters and Republican Party Voters who have No association with
the Democratic Party or the Republican Party, and that they may be named The Guardians of American Democracy.
These Guardians of American Democracy would be a numerous Group of People, and they would ask Republican Voters to Vote for
the Democratic Party Representative instead of the Republican who is in Congress and who is seeking Reelection, in exchange for
Democratic Party Voters to Vote for the Republican Party Candidate instead of the Democrat who is in Congress and who is seeking
Reelection, and the same can be done for the Senate, because the American People have to Decide if it is they the Shadow Regime,
or if it is We the People, and the Establishment Republicans and the Establishment Democrats are the Bribed and Corrupt Puppets
of the Shadow Regime, and there would be equal numbers of Republicans and Democrats replaced in this manner, and so it will Not
affect their numbers in the Congress or the Senate.
There could be People who think that Debbie Wasserman Schultz was Unacceptability Biased and Unacceptability Corrupt during
the Democratic Party Primaries, and that if she wants a Democratic Party Candidate to be Elected in her Congressional District,
then she Should announce that she will Not be contesting the next Election, and there could be People who think that Speaker Paul
Ryan was Unacceptability Disloyal by insufficiently endorse the Republican Presidential nominee, and with other matters, and that
if he wants a Republican Party Candidate to be Elected in his Congressional District, then he Should announce that he will Not
be contesting the next Election, and then the Guardians of American Democracy can look at other Dinos and Rinos, including those
in the Senate, because the Constitution says the words: We the People.
There are Many Americans who have Noticed that Criminal Elites escape Justice, and Corruption is the norm in American Politics.
There are those who Supported Senator Sanders who Realize that Senator Sanders would have been Impeached had he become President,
and they Know that they Need President Donald Trump to prepare the Political Landscape so that someone like Senator Sanders could
be President, without a Coup attempt that is being attempted on President Donald Trump, and while these People may not Vote for
the Republicans, they can Refuse to Vote for the Democratic Party, until the conditions are there for a Constitutional Republic
and a Constitutional Democracy, and they want the Illegal Mueller Team to recuse themselves from this pile of Vile and Putrid
McCarthyist Lies Invented by their Shadow Regime Puppet Masters,
There are Many Americans who want Voter Identification and Paper Ballots for Elections, and they have seen how several States
are Opposed to President Donald Trump's Commission on Election Integrity, because they want to Rig their Elections, and this is
Why there are Many Americans who want America to be a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy.
MillyBloom54 , July 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm
I just read this article in the Washington Monthly, and wish to read informed comments about this issue. There are suggestions
that organized crime from Russian was heavily involved. This is a complicated mess of money, greed, etc.
Yes, very interesting read. By all means, examine the article, which concludes:
"So, let's please stay focused on why this matters.
"And why was Preet Bharara fired again?"
Israeli banks have helped launder money for Russian oligarchs, while large-scale fraudulent industries have been allowed to
flourish in Israel.
A May 2009 diplomatic cable by the US ambassador to Israel warned that "many Russian oligarchs of Jewish origin and Jewish
members of organized crime groups have received Israeli citizenship, or at least maintain residences in the country."
The United States estimated at the time that Russian crime groups had "laundered as much as $10 billion through Israeli holdings."
In 2009, then Manhattan U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara charged 17 managers and employees of the Conference on Jewish Material
Claims for defrauding Germany 42.5 million dollars by creating thousands of false benefit applications for people who had not
suffered in the Holocaust.
The scam operated by creating phony applications with false birth dates and invented histories of persecution to process compensation
claims. In some cases the recipients were born after World War II and at least one person was not even Jewish.
Among those charged was Semyon Domnitser, a former director of the conference. Many of the applicants were recruited from Brooklyn's
Russian community. All those charged hail from Brooklyn.
When a phony applicant got a check, the scammers were given a cut, Bharara said. The fraud which has been going on for 16 years
was related to the 400 million dollars which Germany pays out each year to Holocaust survivors.
Later, in November 2015, Bharara's office charged three Israeli men in a 23-count indictment that alleged that they ran a extensive
computer hacking and fraud scheme that targeted JPMorgan Chase, The Wall Street Journal, and ten other companies.
According to prosecutors, the Israeli's operation generated "hundreds of millions of dollars of illegal profit" and exposed
the personal information of more than 100 million people.
Why was Bharara fired?
Any real investigation of Russia-Gate will draw international attention towards Russian Jewish corruption in the FIRE (Finance,
Insurance, and Real Estate) sectors, and lead back to Israel.
Ain't gonna happen.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:22 pm
Remember Milly that essentially one of the first things Trump did when he came into office was fire Preet, and just days before
the long awaited trial. Then, Jeff Sessions settled the case for 6 million without any testimony on a 230 million dollar case,
days after. Spectacular and brazen, and structured to hide the identities of which properties were bought by which investors.
Hmmmm.
David , July 16, 2017 at 3:33 pm
By the way Milly, great summary article you have linked and one that everyone who is championing the Nekrasov film should read.
Abe , July 16, 2017 at 4:37 pm
The "great" article was not written by a journalist. It's an opinion piece written by Martin Longman, a blogger and Democratic
Party political consultant.
From 2012 to 2013, Longman worked for Democracy for America (DFA) a political action committee, headquartered in South Burlington,
Vermont, founded by former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean.
Since March 2014, political animal Longman has managed the The Washington Monthly website and online magazine.
Although it claims to be "an independent voice", the Washington Monthly is funded by the Ford Foundation, JP Morgan Chase Foundation,
and well-heeled corporate entities http://washingtonmonthly.com/about/
Longman's credentials as a "progressive" alarmist are well established. Since 2005, he has been the publisher of Booman Tribune.
Longman admits that BooMan is related to the 'bogey man' (aka, bogy man, boogeyman), an evil imaginary character who harms children.
Vladimir Putin is the latest bogey man of the Democratic Party and its equally pro-Israel "opposition".
Neither party wants the conversation to involve Jewish Russian organized crime, because that leads to Israel and the pro-Israel
AIPAC lobby that funds both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Guardian in Russia coverage acts as MI6 outlet. Magnitsky probably was MI6 operation, anyway.
Notable quotes:
"... The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so. ..."
"... What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them. ..."
"... In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as" a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact. Which it isn't. ..."
"... No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks. ..."
The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing
anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at
this gem :
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer" –
the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.
But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article
makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.
As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and
not by Putin at all.
The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic
journalistic standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented
an imaginary statement from him so they could conveniently do so.
What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with
all officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent
Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.
When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even
through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative
facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.
In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as"
a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported
claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact.
Which it isn't.
No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials
can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.
The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor – the official at the Guardian/Observer
responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers – who did nothing. By now the article has
rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.
Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda
narrative about the case. Magnitsky
was actually an accountant .
A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in
this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:
"We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.
By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.
From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail
on Sunday by Nick Robinson?
This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today
Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.
I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was
their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq.
The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. Nothing happened afterwards. There
was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international crime against humanity and things actually got worse
post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.
Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill
articles from ever working again in the media.
Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have
a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods ..
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and
the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the
political right . amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas
and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.
The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who
allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if
everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.
I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling
elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes
and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they
begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because
society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality
and real purpose.
The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF
symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush
it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this
is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems.
All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not
enough anymore.
All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls.
It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.
Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.
John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda
system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonising Russia, I would
propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any
day.
The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not understand' – in other words they
play a central role in 'the power of nightmares'
https://www.youtube.com/embed/LlA8KutU2to
So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia?
If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia
in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template
of economic imperialism?
In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported
the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic
conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making
$100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral
damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave
..
I do not know the trurh about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organising mass
genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians
as murdering savages ..
It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats
to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For
example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side
of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake
news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.
What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in
the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer
between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies,
or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth
in a chaotic world.
This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the
Bible and separate the Truths it contained from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine
the social order and fundamental power relationships.
The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information
themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access
the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that people were actually burned alive
in England for smuggling the Bible in English translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such a
'crime.'
One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians
of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation
are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.
We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks
represented.
A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth
the filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on
MSM as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilizing our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank
videos. Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original
being and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest
is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".
Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not
open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public
interest?
In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled: "MPs defend fees of up to Ł1,000 an hour to appear
on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel." However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their
ruse and although the most vociferous critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear
not the buy into the idea that RT is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed
outlet for giving voice to those who the MSM ignore – including former Guardian writers from time to time.
Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance.
In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself
and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.
Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?
For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem
with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut. RT is launching a
French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake news to further Putin's
evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told). Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant
in French political life).
It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban
any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares
their view and that they are in the majority. The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders
for fear of influencing their cult members.
Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is
baseless and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst
it may turn out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy
to the tune of $145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.
A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd
have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison
– she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia
great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones
attention away from ones natural instinct.
[Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated
them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me
Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment
) ]
So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not
one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to
Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.
This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false
in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.
In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.
I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as
Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after
whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily
people can be brainwashed.
The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or
the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which
they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell
us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.
The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc
etc.
Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the
Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..
This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism
practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible
for a breach in diplomatic relations. It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.
"... William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus urged Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany. ..."
"... A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts at 2:07 .) ..."
"... So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside bombs." ..."
"... The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark. ..."
"... The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his piece in the first place. ..."
"... The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency." ..."
"... ancien régime, ..."
"... With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway. ..."
"... Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive, 400,000 Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad. ..."
"... So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore up the status quo turns out to be undermining it. ..."
"... It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee defended or at least apologized for. ..."
"... The Frozen Republic: How the Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy ..."
"... I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them. ..."
"... The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5 years. ..."
"... Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington don't want peace at any price because its bad for business. ..."
"... It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the people! ..."
"... The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S. politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC. ..."
"... This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will end. ..."
"... Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive toys are falling out of the sky in droves. ..."
"... On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives. ..."
"... The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in Syria. ..."
"... Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and Saudis coordinate their activities. ..."
"... An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq, which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world entering into Iraqi Arena." ..."
"... The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)." ..."
"... To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime." ..."
"... The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality" (State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply lines. ..."
"... The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started working overtime. ..."
"... The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians. ..."
"... In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision." ..."
"... Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the result of conscious decision making ..."
"... General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the covert program in Syria. ..."
"... The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection. ..."
"... That it conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course, there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions". ..."
"... The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces. ..."
"... I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the Salafist Islamic state with alarm ..."
"... Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. ..."
"... Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take much to see why he was targeted. ..."
"... The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on 9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" – covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic. ..."
"... Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US, who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union. ..."
"... All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in destroying life on Earth. ..."
"... There is a volume of evidence that the war criminals in our midst were arming and training "jihadists." See link below. http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2016/10/the-evidence-of-planning-of-wars.html ..."
"... Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg. ..."
"... The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well. Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth. ..."
"... The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large collection of links for compiled evidence: http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292 ..."
"... This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without question, in the face of many unanswered questions ..."
"... Bin Laden (CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a "conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated ..."
"... So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war. It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not posting any comments here, either. ..."
"... From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy for the Realm". ..."
"... For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack all who disagree. ..."
"... I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No! US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private profit. ..."
"... Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking. The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic consequences. ..."
"... I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan, with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r? ..."
"... Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived for the zionists. Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had to be opposed. The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists for Mideast wars. ..."
"... Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total destruction. Easy. ..."
"... Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and 'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total disgrace? ..."
When a Department of Defense intelligence
report about the Syrian rebel movement became public in May 2015, lots of people didn't
know what to make of it. After all, what the report said was unthinkable – not only that
Al Qaeda had dominated the so-called democratic revolt against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
for years, but that the West continued to support the jihadis regardless, even to the point of
backing their goal of creating a Sunni Salafist principality in the eastern deserts.
Journalist James Foley shortly before he was executed by an Islamic State operative in
August 2014.
The United States lining up behind Sunni terrorism – how could this be? How could a
nice liberal like Barack Obama team up with the same people who had brought down the World
Trade Center?
It was impossible, which perhaps explains why the report remained a non-story long after it
was released courtesy of a Judicial Watch freedom-of-information
lawsuit . The New York Times didn't mention it until
six months later while the Washington Post waited more than a year before
dismissing it as "loopy" and "relatively unimportant." With ISIS rampaging across much of
Syria and Iraq, no one wanted to admit that U.S. attitudes were ever anything other than
hostile.
But three years earlier, when the Defense Intelligence Agency was compiling the report,
attitudes were different. Jihadis were heroes rather than terrorists, and all the experts
agreed that they were a low-risk, high-yield way of removing Assad from office.
After spending five days with a Syrian rebel unit, for instance, New York Times reporter
C.J. Chivers
wrote that the group "mixes paramilitary discipline, civilian policing, Islamic law, and
the harsh demands of necessity with battlefield coldness and outright cunning."
Paul Salem, director of the Carnegie Middle East Center in Beirut,
assured the Washington Post that "al Qaeda is a fringe element" among the rebels, while,
not to be outdone, the gossip site Buzzfeed published a
pin-up of a "ridiculously photogenic" jihadi toting an RPG.
"Hey girl," said the subhead. "Nothing sexier than fighting the oppression of tyranny."
And then there was Foreign Policy, the magazine founded by neocon guru Samuel P. Huntington,
which was most enthusiastic of all. Gary Gambill's " Two Cheers for Syrian
Islamists ," which ran on the FP web site just a couple of weeks after the DIA report was
completed, didn't distort the facts or make stuff up in any obvious way. Nonetheless, it is a
classic of U.S. propaganda. Its subhead glibly observed: "So the rebels aren't secular
Jeffersonians. As far as America is concerned, it doesn't much matter."
Assessing the Damage
Five years later, it's worth a second look to see how Washington uses self-serving logic to
reduce an entire nation to rubble.
First a bit of background. After displacing France and Britain as the region's prime
imperial overlord during the 1956 Suez Crisis and then breaking with Egyptian President Gamal
Abdel Nasser a few years later, the United States committed itself to the goal of defeating
Arab nationalism and Soviet Communism, two sides of the same coin as far as Washington was
concerned. Over the next half-century, this would mean steering Egypt to the right with
assistance from the Saudis, isolating Libyan strong man Muammar Gaddafi, and doing what it
could to undermine the Syrian Baathist regime as well.
William Roebuck, the American embassy's chargé d'affaires in Damascus, thus
urged
Washington in 2006 to coordinate with Egypt and Saudi Arabia to encourage Sunni Syrian fears of
Shi'ite Iranian proselytizing even though such concerns are "often exaggerated." It was akin to
playing up fears of Jewish dominance in the 1930s in coordination with Nazi Germany.
A year later, former NATO commander Wesley Clark learned of a classified Defense Department
memo stating that U.S. policy was now to "attack and destroy the governments in seven countries
in five years," first Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Iran. (Quote starts
at 2:07 .)
Since the United States didn't like what such governments were doing, the solution was to
install more pliable ones in their place. Hence Washington's joy when the Arab Spring struck
Syria in March 2011 and it appeared that protesters would soon topple the Baathists on their
own.
Even when lofty democratic rhetoric gave way to ominous sectarian
chants of "Christians to Beirut, Alawites to the coffin," U.S. enthusiasm remained strong.
With Sunnis accounting for perhaps 60 percent of the population, strategists figured that there
was no way Assad could hold out against religious outrage welling up from below.
Enter Gambill and the FP. The big news, his article began, is that secularists are no longer
in command of the burgeoning Syrian rebel movement and that Sunni Islamists are taking the lead
instead. As unfortunate as this might seem, he argued that such a development was both
unavoidable and far from entirely negative.
"Islamist political ascendancy is inevitable in a majority Sunni Muslim country brutalized
for more than four decades by a secular minoritarian dictatorship," he wrote in reference to
the Baathists. "Moreover, enormous financial resources are pouring in from the Arab-Islamic
world to promote explicitly Islamist resistance to Assad's Alawite-dominated, Iranian-backed
regime."
So the answer was not to oppose the Islamists, but to use them. Even though "the Islamist
surge will not be a picnic for the Syrian people," Gambill said, "it has two important silver
linings for US interests." One is that the jihadis "are simply more effective fighters than
their secular counterparts" thanks to their skill with "suicide bombings and roadside
bombs."
The other is that a Sunni Islamist victory in Syria will result in "a full-blown strategic
defeat" for Iran, thereby putting Washington at least part way toward fulfilling the
seven-country demolition job discussed by Wesley Clark.
"So long as Syrian jihadis are committed to fighting Iran and its Arab proxies," the article
concluded, "we should quietly root for them – while keeping our distance from a conflict
that is going to get very ugly before the smoke clears. There will be plenty of time to tame
the beast after Iran's regional hegemonic ambitions have gone down in flames."
Deals with the Devil
The U.S. would settle with the jihadis only after the jihadis had settled with Assad. The
good would ultimately outweigh the bad. This kind of self-centered moral calculus would not
have mattered had Gambill only spoken for himself. But he didn't. Rather, he was expressing the
viewpoint of Official Washington in general, which is why the ultra-respectable FP ran his
piece in the first place.The Islamists were something America could employ to their advantage and then throw away
like a squeezed lemon. A few Syrians would suffer, but America would win, and that's all that
counts.
The parallels with the DIA are striking. "The west, gulf countries, and Turkey support the
opposition," the intelligence report declared, even though "the Salafist[s], the Muslim
Brotherhood, and AQI [i.e. Al Qaeda in Iraq] are the major forces driving the insurgency."
Where Gambill predicted that "Assad and his minions will likely retreat to northwestern
Syria," the DIA speculated that the jihadis might establish "a declared or undeclared Salafist
principality" at the other end of the country near cities like Hasaka and Der Zor (also known
as Deir ez-Zor).
Where the FP said that the ultimate aim was to roll back Iranian influence and undermine
Shi'ite rule, the DIA said that a Salafist principality "is exactly what the supporting powers
to the opposition want in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic
depth of Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
Bottle up the Shi'ites in northwestern Syria, in other words, while encouraging Sunni
extremists to establish a base in the east so as to put pressure on Shi'ite-influenced Iraq and
Shi'ite-ruled Iran.
As Gambill put it: "Whatever misfortunes Sunni Islamists may visit upon the Syrian people,
any government they form will be strategically preferable to the Assad regime, for
three reasons: A new government in Damascus will find continuing the alliance with Tehran
unthinkable, it won't have to distract Syrians from its minority status with foreign policy
adventurism like the ancien régime, and it will be flush with petrodollars from
Arab Gulf states (relatively) friendly to Washington."
With the Saudis footing the bill, the U.S. would exercise untrammeled sway.
Disastrous Thinking
Has a forecast that ever gone more spectacularly wrong? Syria's Baathist government is
hardly blameless in this affair. But thanks largely to the U.S.-backed sectarian offensive,
400,000
Syrians or more have died since Gambill's article appeared, with another 6.1 million
displaced and an estimated 4.8 million fleeing abroad.
U.S.-backed Syrian "moderate" rebels smile as they prepare to behead a 12-year-old boy
(left), whose severed head is held aloft triumphantly in a later part of the video. [Screenshot
from the YouTube video] War-time destruction totals around $250
billion , according to U.N. estimates, a staggering sum for a country of 18.8 million
people where per-capita income prior to the outbreak of violence was under $3,000. From Syria,
the specter of sectarian violence has spread across Asia and Africa and into Europe and North
America as well. Political leaders throughout the advanced industrial world are still
struggling to contain the populist fury that the Middle East refugee crisis, the result of
U.S.-instituted regime change, helped set off.
So instead of advancing U.S. policy goals, Gambill helped do the opposite. The Middle East
is more explosive than ever while U.S. influence has fallen to sub-basement levels. Iranian
influence now extends from the Arabian Sea to the Mediterranean, while the country that now
seems to be wobbling out of control is Saudi Arabia where Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman is
lurching from one self-induced crisis to another. The country that Gambill counted on to shore
up the status quo turns out to be undermining it.
It's not easy to screw things up so badly, but somehow Washington's bloated foreign-policy
establishment has done it. Since helping to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, Gambill has
moved on to a post at the rightwing Middle East Forum where Daniel Pipes, the group's founder
and chief, now inveighs against the same Sunni ethnic cleansing that his employee
defended or at least apologized for.
The forum is particularly well known for its Campus Watch program, which targets academic
critics of Israel, Islamists, and – despite Gambill's kind words about "suicide bombings
and roadside bombs" – anyone it considers the least bit apologetic about Islamic
terrorism.
Double your standard, double the fun. Terrorism, it seems, is only terrorism when others do
it to the U.S., not when the U.S. does it to others.
Daniel Lazare is the author of several books including The Frozen Republic: How the
Constitution Is Paralyzing Democracy (Harcourt Brace).
Babyl-on , December 8, 2017 at 5:26 pm
I do not believe than anyone in the civil or military command ever believed that arming
the jihadists would bring any sort of stability or peace to the region. I do not believe that
peace was ever an interest of the US until it has once again gained hegemonic control of
central Asia. This is a fight to retain US global domination – causalities do not matter. The US
and its partners or co-rulers of the Empire the Saud family and the Zionist oligarchy will
slaughter with impunity until someone stops them or their own corruption defeats them.
The Empire can not exist without relentless ongoing slaughter it has been at it every day
now for 73 years. It worked for them all that time but that time has run out. China has
already set the date for when its currency will become fully freely exchanged, less than 5
years. When that happens the world will return to the gold standard + Bitcoin possibly and US
dollar hegemony will end. After that the trillion dollar a year military and the 20 trillion
debt take on a different meaning. Before that slaughter non-stop will continue.
john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:31 am
Really, Baby-lon, your first short paragraph sums this piece by Lazare perfectly and makes
the rest of his blog seem rather pointless. Even the most stupid person on earth couldn't
think that the US was using murdering, butchering head choppers in a bid to bring peace and
stability to the middle East. The Neocons and the other criminals that infest Washington
don't want peace at any price because its bad for business.
Babyl-on and John Wilson: you have nailed it. The last thing the US (gov't.) wants is
peace. War is big business; casualties are of no concern (3 million Koreans died in the
Korean War; 3 million Vietnamese in that war; 100's of thousands in Iraq [including Clinton's
sanctions] and Afghanistan). The US has used jihadi proxies since the mujahedeen in 1980's
Afghanistan and Contras in Nicaragua. To the US (gov't.), a Salafist dictatorship (such as
Saudi Arabia) is highly preferable to a secular, nationalist ruler (such as Egypt's Nasser,
Libya's Gaddafi, Syria's Assad).
So the cover story of the jjihadi's has changed – first they are freedom fighters, then
terrorists. What does not change is that in either case they are pawns of the US (gov't.)
goal of hegemony.
(Incidentally, Drew Hunkins must be responding to a different article.)
Exactly Baby right on, Either USA strategists are extremely ignorant or they are attempting
to create chaos, probably both.
Perhaps not continuously but surely frequently the USA has promoted war prior to the last 73
years. Native Genocide , Mexican Wars, Spanish War, WWI ( USA banker repayment war)
Richard , December 9, 2017 at 5:24 pm
Exactly Babylon! Looks like consortiumnews is turning into another propaganda rag. Assad
was allied with Russia and Iran – that's why the U.S. wanted him removed. Israel said
that they would preferred ISIS in power over Assad. The U.S. would have happily wiped out 90%
of the population using its terrorist proxies if it thought it could have got what it
wanted.
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:50 am
CN tends to make moderate statements so as to communicate with those most in need of
them.
One must start with the understandings of the audience and show them that the evidence leads
further.
Richard , December 10, 2017 at 10:27 am
Sam F, no, it's a DELIBERATE lie in support of U.S. foreign policy. The guy wrote: "the
NAIVE belief that jihadist proxies could be used to TRANSFORM THE REGION FOR THE BETTER." It
could have been written as: "the stated justification by the president that he wanted to
transform the region for the better, even though there are often ulterior motives."
It's the same GROTESQUE caricature of these wars that the mainstream media always
presents: that the U.S. is on the side of good, and fights for good, even though every war
INVARIABLY ends up in a bloodbath, with no one caring how many civilians have died, what
state the country is left in, that civilian infrastructure and civilians were targeted, let
alone whether war could have been prevented. For example, in 1991, shortly after the first
Gulf War, Iraqis rose up against their regime, but George H. Bush allowed Saddam to fly his
military helicopters (permission was needed due to the no-fly zones), and quell the rebellion
in blood – tens of thousands were butchered! Bush said that when he told Iraqis to
rebel, he meant the military generals, NOT the Iraqi people themselves. In other words, the
U.S. wanted Saddam gone, but the same regime in place. The U.S. never cared about the
people!
Either Robert Parry or the author wrote that introduction. I suspect Mr Parry – he
always portrays the president as having a heart of gold, but, always, sadly, misinformed;
being a professional journalist, he knows full well that people often only read the start and
end of an article.
Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 5:31 pm
What we have occurring right now in the United States is a rare divergence of interests
within our ruling class. The elites are currently made up of Zionist-militarists. What we're
now witnessing is a rare conflict between the two factions. This particular internecine
battle has reared its head in the past, the Dubai armaments deal comes to mind off the top of
my head.
Trump started the Jerusalem imbroglio because he's concerned about Mueller's witch
hunt.
The military-industrial-complex sicced Mueller on Trump because they despise his overtures
towards rapprochement with the Kremlin. The military-industrial-complex MUST have a villain
to justify the gigantic defense [sic] spending which permeates the entire U.S.
politico-economic system. Putin and Russia were always the preferred demon because they
easily fit the bill in the minds of an easily brainwashed American public. Of course saber
rattling towards Moscow puts the world on the brink of nuclear war, but no matter, the
careerism and fat contracts are all that matter to the MIC. Trump's rhetoric about making
peace with the Kremlin has always mortified the MIC.
Since Trump's concerned about 1.) Mueller's witch hunt (he definitely should be deeply
concerned, this is an out of control prosecutor on mission creep), and 2.) the almost total
negative coverage the press has given him over the last two years, he's made a deal with the
Zionist Power Configuration; Trump, effectively saying to them: "I'll give you Jerusalem, you
use your immense influence in the American mass media to tamp down the relentlessly hostile
coverage toward me, and perhaps smear Mueller's witch hunt a bit ".
This is a rare instance of our elites battling it out behind the scenes, both groups being
reprehensible power hungry greed heads and sociopaths, it's hard to tell how this will
end.
How this all eventually plays out is anyone's guess indeed. Let's just make sure it
doesn't end with mushroom clouds over Tehran, Saint Petersburg, Paris, Chicago, London, NYC,
Washington and Berlin.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm
Trump's purported deviation from foreign policy orthodoxy regarding both Russia and Israel
was a propaganda scam engineered by the pro-Israel Lobby from the very beginning. As Russia-gate fiction is progressively deconstructed, the Israel-gate reality becomes
ever more despicably obvious.
The shamelessly Israel-pandering Trump received the "Liberty Award" for his contributions
to US-Israel relations at a 3 February 2015 gala hosted by The Algemeiner Journal, a New
York-based newspaper, covering American and international Jewish and Israel-related news.
After the event, Trump did not renew his television contract for The Apprentice, which
raised speculation about a Trump bid for the presidency. Trump announced his candidacy in
June 2015.
Trump's purported break with GOP orthodoxy, questioning of Israel's commitment to peace,
calls for even treatment in Israeli-Palestinian deal-making, and refusal to call for
Jerusalem to be Israel's undivided capital, were all stage-managed for the campaign.
Cheap theatrics notwithstanding, the Netanyahu regime in Israel has "1000 percent" support
from the Trump regime.
Drew Hunkins , December 8, 2017 at 8:10 pm
If Trump were totally and completely subservient to Netanyahu he would have bombed
Damascus to remove Assad and would have bombed Tehran to obliterate Iran. Of course thus far
he has done neither. Don't get me wrong, Trump is essentially part and parcel of the Zionist
cabal, but I don't quite think he's 1,000% under their thumb (not yet?).
I don't think the Zionist Power Configuration concocted Trump's policy of relative peace
with the Kremlin. Yes, the ZPC is extremely powerful in America, but Trump's position of
detente with Moscow seemed to be genuine. He caught way too much heat from the mass media for
it to be a stunt, it's almost torpedoed his presidency, and may eventually do just that. It
was actually one of the very few things Trump got right; peace with Russia, cordial relations
with the Kremlin are a no-brainer. A no-brainer to everyone but the
military-industrial-complex.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 10:59 pm
Russian. Missiles. Lets be clear: The military-industrial-complex wants plenty of low intensity conflict to
fuel ever more fabulous weapons sales, not a really hot war where all those pretty expensive
toys are falling out of the sky in droves.
Whether it was "bird strike" or something more technological that recently grounded the
"mighty" Israeli F-35I, it's clear that America isn't eager to have those "Inherent Resolve"
jets, so busily not bombing ISIS, painted with Russian SAM radar.
Russia made it clear that Trump's Tomahawk Tweet in April 2017 was not only under totally
false pretenses. It had posed a threat to Russian troops and Moscow took extra measures to
protect them.
Russian deployment of the advanced S-400 system on the Syrian coast in Latakia also
impacts Israel's regional air superiority. The S-400 can track and shoot down targets some
400 kilometers (250 miles) away. That range encompasses half of Israel's airspace, including
Ben Gurion International Airport. In addition to surface-to-air missiles installations, Russian aircraft in Syria are
equipped with air-to-air missiles. Those weapons are part of an calculus of Israeli aggression in the region.
Of course, there's much more to say about this subject.
Surely, Drew, even the brain washed sheep otherwise known as the American public can't
seriously believe that their government armed head choppers in a bid to bring peace to the
region, can they?
Drew Hunkins , December 9, 2017 at 1:34 pm
Yup Mr. Wilson. It's too much cognitive dissonance for them to process. After all, we're
the exceptional nation, the beacon on the hill, the country that ONLY intervenes abroad when
there is a 'right to protect!' or it's a 'humanitarian intervention.' As Ken Burns would say:
Washington only acts "with good intentions. They're just sometimes misplaced." That's all.
The biggest global empire the world has ever seen is completely out of the picture.
mike k , December 8, 2017 at 5:34 pm
When evil people with evil intentions set out to do something in the world, the result is
evil. Like Libya, or Iraq, or Syria. Why do I call these people who killed millions for their
own selfish greed for power evil? If you have to ask that, then you just don't understand
what evil is – and you have a lot of company, because many people believe that evil
does not even exist! Such sheeple become the perfect victims of the evil ones, who are
destroying our world.
john wilson , December 9, 2017 at 6:36 am
Correction, Mike. The public do believe that evil exists but they sincerely think that
Putin and Russia are the evil ones'
mike k , December 9, 2017 at 5:41 pm
One of the ways to avoid recognizing evil is to ascribe it to inappropriate, incorrect
sources usually as a result of believing misleading propaganda. Another common maneuver is to
deny evil's presence in oneself, and believe it is always "out there". Or one can feel that
"evil" is an outmoded religious concept that is only used to hit at those one does not
like.
Mild - ly Facetious , December 8, 2017 at 6:22 pm
Oh Jerusalem: Requiem for the two-state solution (Gas masks required)
On 24 October 2017, the Intercept released an NSA document unearthed from leaked
intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which reveals that terrorist militants in Syria
were under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which
has now claimed half a million lives.
Marked "Top Secret" the NSA memo focuses on events that unfolded outside Damascus in March
of 2013.
The US intelligence memo is evidence of internal US government confirmation of the direct
role that both the Saudi and US governments played in fueling attacks on civilians and
civilian infrastructure, as well as military targets in pursuit of "regime change" in
Syria.
Israel's support for terrorist forces in Syria is well established. The Israelis and
Saudis coordinate their activities.
Abe , December 8, 2017 at 6:27 pm
An August 2012 DIA report (written when the U.S. was monitoring weapons flows from Libya
to Syria), said that the opposition in Syria was driven by al Qaeda and other extremist
groups: "the Salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI are the major forces driving the
insurgency in Syria." The "deterioration of the situation" was predicted to have "dire consequences" for Iraq,
which included the "grave danger" of a terrorist "Islamic state". Some of the "dire consequences" are blacked out but the DIA warned one such consequence
would be the "renewing facilitation of terrorist elements from all over the Arab world
entering into Iraqi Arena."
The heavily redacted DIA memo specifically mentions "the possibility of establishing a
declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this
is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian
regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran)."
To clarify just who these "supporting powers" were, mentioned in the document who sought
the creation of a "Salafist principality," the DIA memo explained: "The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and
Iran support the regime."
The DIA memo clearly indicates when it was decided to transform US, Saudi, and
Turkish-backed Al Qaeda affiliates into ISIS: the "Salafist" (Islamic) "principality"
(State). NATO member state Turkey has been directly supporting terrorism in Syria, and
specifically, supporting ISIS. In 2014, Germany's international broadcaster Deutsche Welle's reported "'IS' supply
channels through Turkey." DW exposed fleets of hundreds of trucks a day, passing unchallenged
through Turkey's border crossings with Syria, clearly bound for the defacto ISIS capital of
Raqqa. Starting in September 2015, Russian airpower in Syria successfully interdicted ISIS supply
lines.
The usual suspects in Western media launched a relentless propaganda campaign against
Russian support for Syria. The Atlantic Council's Bellingcat disinformation operation started
working overtime.
The propaganda effort culminated in the 4 April 2017 Khan Shaykhun false flag chemical
incident in Idlib. Bellingcat's Eliot Higgins and Dan Kaszeta have been paraded by "First
Draft" coalition media "partners" in a vigorous effort to somehow implicate the Russians.
Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:26 pm
In a January 2016 interview on Al Jazeera, former director of the Defense Intelligence
Agency Michael Flynn admitted that he "paid very close attention" to the August 2012 DIA
report predicting the rise of a "declared or undeclared Salafist Principality" in Syria. Flynn even asserts that the White House's sponsoring of terrorists (that would emerge as
Al Nusra and ISIS) against the Syrian regime was "a willful decision."
Flynn was interviewed by British journalist Mehdi Hasan for Al Jazeera's Head to Head
program. Flynn made it clear that the policies that led to the "the rise of the Islamic State, the
rise of terrorism" were not merely the result of ignorance or looking the other way, but the
result of conscious decision making:
Hasan: "You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew these groups
were around, you saw this analysis, and you were arguing against it, but who wasn't
listening?"
Flynn: "I think the administration."
Hasan: "So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis?"
Flynn: "I don't know that they turned a blind eye, I think it was a decision. I think it
was a willful decision."
Hasan: "A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the
Muslim Brotherhood?"
Flynn: "It was a willful decision to do what they're doing."
Holding up a paper copy of the 2012 DIA report declassified through FOIA, Hasan read aloud
key passages such as, "there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared
Salafist principality in Eastern Syria, and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the
opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime."
Rather than downplay the importance of the document and these startling passages, as did
the State Department soon after its release, Flynn did the opposite: he confirmed that while
acting DIA chief he "paid very close attention" to this report in particular and later added
that "the intelligence was very clear."
Lt. Gen. Flynn, speaking safely from retirement, is the highest ranking intelligence
official to go on record saying the United States and other state sponsors of rebels in Syria
knowingly gave political backing and shipped weapons to Al-Qaeda in order to put pressure on
the Syrian regime:
Hasan: "In 2012 the U.S. was helping coordinate arms transfers to those same groups
[Salafists, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda in Iraq], why did you not stop that if you're
worried about the rise of quote-unquote Islamic extremists?"
Flynn: "I hate to say it's not my job but that my job was to was to to ensure that the
accuracy of our intelligence that was being presented was as good as it could be."
Flynn unambiguously confirmed that the 2012 DIA document served as source material in his
own discussions over Syria policy with the White House. Flynn served as Director of Intelligence for Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC)
during a time when its prime global mission was dismantling Al-Qaeda.
Flynn's admission that the White House was in fact arming and bolstering Al-Qaeda linked
groups in Syria is especially shocking given his stature. The Pentagon's former highest ranking intelligence officer in charge of the hunt for Osama
bin Laden confessed that the United States directly aided the Al Qaeda terrorist legions of
Ayman al-Zawahiri beginning in at least 2012 in Syria.
Abe , December 9, 2017 at 12:44 pm
Mehdi Hasan goes Head to Head with Michael Flynn, former head of the US Defense
Intelligence Agency
"Flynn would later tell the New York Times that this 2012 intelligence report in
particular was seen at the White House where it was 'disregarded' because it 'didn't meet the
narrative' on the war in Syria. He would further confirm to investigative journalist Seymour
Hersh that Defense Department (DoD) officials and DIA intelligence in particular, were loudly
warning the administration that jihadists were leading the opposition in Syria -- warnings
which were met with 'enormous pushback.' Instead of walking back his Al Jazeera comments,
General Flynn explained to Hersh that 'If the American public saw the intelligence we were
producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic.' Hersh's investigative
report exposed a kind of intelligence schism between the Pentagon and CIA concerning the
covert program in Syria.
"In a personal exchange on his blog Sic Semper Tyrannis, legendary DoD intelligence
officer and former presidential briefer Pat Lang explained [ ] that the DIA memo was used as
a 'warning shot across the [administration's] bow.' Lang has elsewhere stated that DIA
Director Flynn had 'tried to persuade people in the Obama Administration not to provide
assistance to the Nusra group.' It must be remembered that in 2012 what would eventually
emerge as distinct 'ISIS' and 'Nusra' (AQ in Syria) groups was at that time a singular entity
desiring a unified 'Islamic State.' The nascent ISIS organization (referenced in the memo as
'ISI' or Islamic State in Iraq) was still one among many insurgent groups fighting to topple
Assad.
"In fact, only one year after the DIA memo was produced (dated August 12, 2012) a
coalition of rebels fighting under the US-backed Revolutionary Military Council of Aleppo
were busy celebrating their most strategic victory to date, which served to open an
opposition corridor in Northern Syria. The seizure of the Syrian government's Menagh Airbase
in August 2013 was only accomplished with the military prowess of fighters identifying
themselves in front of cameras and to reporters on the ground as the Islamic State of Iraq
and al-Sham.
"Public embarrassment came for Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford who reluctantly confirmed
that in fact, yes, the US-funded and supplied FSA commander on the ground had personally led
ISIS and Nusra fighters in the attack (Ford himself was previously filmed alongside the
commander). This after the New York Times publicized unambiguous video proof of the fact.
Even the future high commander of Islamic State's military operations, Omar al-Shishani,
himself played a leading role in the US sponsored FSA operation."
"one first needs to understand what has happened in Syria and other Middle Eastern
countries in recent years. The original plan of the US and Saudi Arabia (behind whom stood an
invisible Israel) was the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad and his replacement with Islamic
fundamentalists or takfiris (Daesh, al-Qaeda, Jabhat al-Nusra).
"The plan involved the following steps:
sweep away a strong secular Arab state with a political culture, armed forces and
security services;
generate total chaos and horror in Syria that would justify the creation of Israel's
'security zone', not only in Golan Heights, but also further north;
start a civil war in Lebanon and incite takfiri violence against Hezbollah, leading
to them both bleeding to death and then create a "security zone", this time in Lebanon;
prevent the creation of a "Shiite axis" of Iran/Iraq/Syria/Lebanon;
continue the division of Syria along ethnic and religious lines, establish an
independent Kurdistan and then to use them against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran.
give Israel the opportunity to become the unquestioned major player in the region and
force Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait and everyone else to apply for permission from Israel
in order to implement any oil and gas projects;
gradually isolate, threaten, undermine and ultimately attack Iran with a wide
regional coalition, removing all Shiite centers of power in the middle East.
"It was an ambitious plan, and the Israelis were completely convinced that the United
States would provide all the necessary resources to see it through. But the Syrian government
has survived thanks to military intervention by Russia, Iran and Hezbollah. Daesh is almost
defeated and Iran and Hezbollah are so firmly entrenched in Syria that it has driven the
Israelis into a state of fear bordering on panic. Lebanon remains stable, and even the recent
attempt by the Saudis to abduct Prime Minister Saad Hariri failed.
"As a result, Saudi Arabia and Israel have developed a new plan: force the US to attack
Iran. To this end, the 'axis of good"' (USA-Israel-Saudi Arabia) was created, although this
is nothing new. Saudi Arabia and the other Arab States in the Persian Gulf have in the past
spoken in favor of intervention in Syria. It is well known that the Saudis invaded Bahrain,
are occupying it de facto, and are now at war in Yemen.
"The Israelis will participate in any plan that will finally split the Sunnis and Shiites,
turning the region into rubble. It was not by chance that, having failed in Lebanon, they are
now trying to do the same in Yemen after the murder of Ali Abdullah Saleh.
"For the Saudis and Israelis, the problem lies in the fact that they have rather weak
armed forces; expensive and high-tech, but when it comes to full-scale hostilities,
especially against a really strong opponent such as the Iranians or Hezbollah, the
'Israel/Wahhabis' have no chance and they know it, even if they do not admit it. So, one
simply needs to think up some kind of plan to force the Shiites to pay a high price.
"So they developed a new plan. Firstly, the goal is now not the defeat of Hezbollah or
Iran. For all their rhetoric, the Israelis know that neither they nor especially the Saudis
are able to seriously threaten Iran or even Hezbollah. Their plan is much more basic:
initiate a serious conflict and then force the US to intervene. Only today, the armed forces
of the United States have no way of winning a war with Iran, and this may be a problem. The
US military knows this and they are doing everything to tell the neo-cons 'sorry, we just
can't.' This is the only reason why a US attack on Iran has not already taken place. From the
Israeli point of view this is totally unacceptable and the solution is simple: just force the
US to participate in a war they do not really need. As for the Iranians, the Israeli goal of
provoking an attack on Iran by the US is not to defeat Iran, but just to bring about
destruction – a lot of destruction [ ]
"You would need to be crazy to attack Iran. The problem, however, is that the Saudis and
the Israelis are close to this state. And they have proved it many times. So it just remains
to hope that Israel and the KSA are 'crazy', but 'not that crazy'."
The article raises a very serious charge. Up till now it appeared that supplying weapons to
Al Qaeda affiliates in Syria was just another example of Pentagon incompetence but the
suggestion here is that it was a concerted policy and it's hard to believe that there was no
one in the Pentagon that was privy to that policy who wouldn't raise an objection.
That it
conformed with Israeli, Saudi and CIA designs is not surprising, but that there was no
dissension within the Pentagon is appalling (or that Obama didn't raise objections). Clark's
comment should put him on the hot seat for a congressional investigation but, of course,
there is no one in congress to run with it. The policy is so manifestly evil that it seems to
dwarf even the reckless ignorance of preceding "interventions".
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:24 pm
There WAS dissension within the Pentagon, not only about being in a coalition with the
Gulf States and Turkey in support of terrorist forces, but about allowing ISIS to invade
Ramadi, which CENTCOM exposed by making public that US forces watched it happen and did
nothing. In addition, CENTCOM and SOCOM publicly opposed switching sides in Yemen.
A senior commander at Central Command (CENTCOM), speaking on condition of anonymity,
scoffed at that argument. "The reason the Saudis didn't inform us of their plans," he said,
"is because they knew we would have told them exactly what we think -- that it was a bad
idea.
Military sources said that a number of regional special forces officers and officers at
U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) argued strenuously against supporting the Saudi-led
intervention because the target of the intervention, the Shia Houthi movement -- which has
taken over much of Yemen and which Riyadh accuses of being a proxy for Tehran -- has been
an effective counter to Al-Qaeda.
The DIA report released by Gen. Flynn in 2012 predicted the Islamic State with alarm. That
is why Flynn was fired as Director of DIA. He objected to the insane policy of supporting the
CIA/Saudi madness and saw it as not only counter-productive but disastrous. His comments to
AlJazeera in 2016 reinforced this position. Gen Flynn's faction of the American military has
been consistent in its opposition to CIA support of terrorist forces.
Thanks, I never read anything about it in the MSM (perhaps Aljazeera was an exception?).
However, this doesn't explain Gen. Flynn's tight relationship with Turkey's Erdogan who
clearly backed the Al Qaeda affiliated rebels to the point of shooting down a Russian jet
over Syria.
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 8:57 am
The fighter shoot-down incident was before Erdogan's reversals in Syria policy.
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:28 pm
I see Gen. Flynn as a whistleblower. The 2012 report he circulated saw the rise of the
Salafist Islamic state with alarm.
B. THE SALAFIST, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD, AND AQI ARE THE MAJOR FORCES DRIVING THE
INSURGENCY IN SYRIA.
C. THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY SUPPORT THE OPPOSITION; WHILE RUSSIA, CHINA, AND
IRAN SUPPORT THE REGIME.
C. IF THE SITUATION UNRAVELS THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR
UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY
WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME,
WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE STRATEGIC DEPTH OF THE SHIA EXPANSION (IRAQ AND IRAN).
D. THE DETERIORATION OF THE SITUATION HAS DIRE CONSEQUENCES ON THE IRAQI SITUATION AND
ARE AS FOLLOWS:
–1. THIS CREATES THE IDEAL ATMOSPHERE FOR AQI TO RETURN TO ITS OLD POCKETS IN
MOSUL AND RAMADI, AND WILL PROVIDE A RENEWED MOMENTUM UNDER THE PRESUMPTION OF UNIFYING THE
JIHAD AMONG SUNNI IRAQ AND SYRIA ISI COULD ALSO DECLARE AN ISLAMIC STATE THROUGH ITS UNION
WITH OTHER TERRORIST ORGANIZATIONS IN IRAQ AND SYRIA, WHICH WILL CREATE GRAVE DANGER IN
REGARDS TO UNIFYING IRAQ AND THE PROTECTION OF ITS TERRITORY
Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, director of the DIA between 2012 and 2014, confirmed
that his agency had sent a constant stream of classified warnings to the civilian
leadership about the dire consequences of toppling Assad. The jihadists, he said, were in
control of the opposition. Turkey wasn't doing enough to stop the smuggling of foreign
fighters and weapons across the border. 'If the American public saw the intelligence we
were producing daily, at the most sensitive level, they would go ballistic,' Flynn told me.
'We understood Isis's long-term strategy and its campaign plans, and we also discussed the
fact that Turkey was looking the other way when it came to the growth of the Islamic State
inside Syria.' The DIA's reporting, he said, 'got enormous pushback' from the Obama
administration. 'I felt that they did not want to hear the truth.'
j. D. D. , December 9, 2017 at 8:33 am
Thank you. Gen Flynn also urged coordination with Russia against ISIS, so it doesn't take
much to see why he was targeted. Ironically, the MSM is now going bananas over his support
for nuclear power in the region, which he had tied to desalination of sea water, toward
alleviating that crucial source of conflict in the area.
Abbybwood , December 9, 2017 at 11:24 pm
I believe Wesley Clark told Amy Goodman that he was handed the classified memo regarding
the U.S. overthrowing seven countries in five years starting with Iraq and ending with Iran,
in 2001, not 2006. He said it was right after 9/11 when he visited the Pentagon and Joint
Chief of Staff's office and was handed the memo.
jaycee , December 8, 2017 at 7:19 pm
The use of Islamist proxy warriors to help achieve American geo-political ends goes back
to at least 1979, including Afghanistan, Bosnia, Libya, and Syria. One of the better books on
9/11 is Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed's "The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation, and the Anatomy of
Terrorism". The first section of that book – "The Geopolitics of Terrorism" –
covers, across 150 well-sourced pages, the history and background of this involvement. It is
highly recommended for anyone who wishes to be better informed on this topic.
One disturbing common feature across the years have been US sponsored airlifts of Islamist
fighters facing defeat, as seen in Afghanistan in late 2001 and just recently in eastern
Syria. In 2001, some of those fighters were relocated to North Africa, specifically Mali
– the roots of the Islamist insurgency which has destabilized that country over the
past few years. Where exactly the ISIS rebels assisted some weeks ago were relocated is yet
unknown.
turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:03 pm
Jaycee, actually you have to go back much further than that to WW2. Hitler used the
marginalized Turkic people in Russia and turned them into effective fighters to create
internal factions within the Soviet Union. After Hitler lost and the Cold War began, the US,
who had no understanding of the Soviets at the time radicalized and empowered Islamist
including the Muslim Brotherhood to weaponize Islam against the Soviet Union.
Hence the birth of the Mujaheddin and Bin Laden, the rest is history.
j. D. D. , December 8, 2017 at 7:57 pm
The article does not support the sub-headline. There is no evidence provided, nor is there
any evidence to be found, that Washington's policy in the region was motivated by anything
other than geopolitical objectives.
David G , December 9, 2017 at 7:25 am
I think that phrasing may point to the hand of editor Robert Parry. The incredible value
of CN notwithstanding, Parry in his own pieces (erroneously in my eyes) maintains a belief
that Obama somehow meant well. Hence the imputation of some "naïve" but ultimately
benevolent motive on the part of the U.S. genocidaires, as the whole Syria catastrophe got
going on Obama's watch.
Anon , December 9, 2017 at 9:14 am
The imputation of naivete works to avoid accusation of a specific strategy without
sufficient evidence.
Skip Scott , December 9, 2017 at 9:45 am
Although I am no fan of Obama, and most especially the continuation of the warmongering
for his 8 years, he did balk at the "Red line" when he found out he was being set up, and it
wasn't Assad who used chemical weapons. I don't think he "meant well" so much as he knew the
exact length of his leash. His bragging about going against "The Washington playbook" was of
course laughable; just as his whole hopey/changey thing was laughable with Citigroup picking
his cabinet.
All these western imperial geostrategic planners are certifiably insane and have no
business anywhere near the levers of government policy. They are the number one enemy of
humanity. If we don't find a way to remove them from power, they may actually succeed in
destroying life on Earth.
"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the
naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better,
explains Daniel Lazare." What a load of old rubbish, naïve belief indeed. it is difficult to believe that
anyone could write this stuff with a straight face.
Linda Wood , December 8, 2017 at 10:37 pm
Incompetence and stupidity are their only defense because if anyone acknowledged that
trillions of dollars have been made by the usual suspects committing these crimes, the
industrialists of war would face a justice symbolized by Nuremberg.
Zachary Smith , December 8, 2017 at 11:37 pm
That Gary Gambill character "outed" himself as a Zionist on September 4 of this year. He
appears to have mastered the propaganda associated with the breed. At the link see if
you can find any mention of the murders, thefts, ethnic cleansing, or apartheid of his
adopted nation. Blaming the victim may be this fellow's specialty. Sample:
The well-intentioned flocked in droves to the belief that Israeli- Palestinian peace was
achievable provided Israel made the requisite concessions, and that this would liberate the
Arab-Islamic world from a host of other problems allegedly arising from it: bloated
military budgets, intolerance of dissent, Islamic extremism, you name it.
Why tackle each of these problems head on when they can be alleviated all at once when
Israel is brought to heel? Twenty years later, the Middle East is suffering the
consequences of this conspiracy of silence.
The American groupthink rarely allows propaganda and disinformation disturb: endless wars
and endless lies and criminality, have not disturbed this mindset. It is clever to manipulate
people to think in a way opposite of truth so consistently. All the atrocities by the US have
been surrounded by media propaganda and mastery of groupthink techniques go down well.
Mention something unusual or real news and you might get heavily criticized for daring to
think outside the box and doubt what are (supposedly) "religious truths". Tell a lie long
enough and it becomes the truth.
It takes courage to go against the flow of course and one can only hope that the Americans
are what they think they are: courageous and strong enough to hear their cherished truths
smashed, allow the scales before their eyes to fall and practise free speech and free
thought.
Theo , December 9, 2017 at 6:35 am
Thanks for this article and many others on this site.In Europe and in Germany you hardly
hear,read or see any of these facts and their connections.It seems to be only of marginal
interest.
The CIA was a key force behind the creation of both al Qaeda and ISIS. Most major
incidents of "Islamic Terrorism" have some kind of CIA backing behind them. See this large
collection of links for compiled evidence:
http://www.pearltrees.com/joshstern/government-supporting/id18814292
triekc , December 9, 2017 at 8:27 am
This journalist and other journalists writing on some of my favorite Russian propaganda
news websites, have reported the US empire routinely makes "deals with the devil", the enemy
of my enemy is my friend, if doing so furthers their goal of perpetual war and global
hegemony. Yet, inexplicably, these journalists buy the US empire's 911 story without
question, in the face of many unanswered questions.
Beginning in the 1990's, neocons who
would become W's cabinet, wrote detailed plans of military regime change in Middle East, but
stating they needed a "strong external shock to the United States -- a latter-day 'Pearl
Harbor", to get US sheeple to support increased militarism and global war. Few months after W
took office, and had appointed those war mongering neocons to positions of power, Bin Laden
(CIA staffer) and a handful of his men, all from close allied countries to the US, Saudi
Arabia, UAE, Egypt, delivered the 2nd Pearl Harbor on 911. What a timely coincidence! We
accept the US Empire provides weapons and military support to the same enemy, and worse, who
attacked us on 911, but one is labeled a "conspiracy nut" if they believe that same US Empire
would orchestrate 911 to justify their long planned global war. One thing about being a
"conspiracy nut", if you live long enough, often you will see your beliefs vindicated
Joe Tedesky , December 9, 2017 at 11:27 am
You commented on what I was thinking, and that was, 'remember when al Queda was our enemy
on 911'? So now that bin Laden is dead, and his al Queda now fights on our side, shouldn't
the war be over? And, just for the record who did attack us on 911?
So many questions, and so much left unanswered, but don't worry America may run out of
money for domestic vital needs but the U.S. always has the money to go fight another war.
It's a culture thing, and if you ain't into it then you just don't pay no attention to it. In
fact if your life is better off from all of these U.S. led invasions, then your probably not
posting any comments here, either.
Knowing the Pentagon mentality they probably have an 'al Queda combat medal' to pin on the
terrorists chest. Sarcasm I know, but seriously is anything not within the realm of
believable when it comes to this MIC establishment?
Christene Bartels , December 9, 2017 at 8:53 am
Great article and spot on as far as the author takes it. But the world is hurtling towards
Armageddon so I'd like to back things up about one hundred years and get down to brass
tacks.
The fact of the matter is, the M.E. has never been at total peace but it has been nothing
but one colossal FUBAR since the Ottoman Empire was defeated after WWI and the Allied Forces
got their grubby, greedy mitts on its M.E. territories and all of that luscious black gold.
First up was the British Empire and France and then it really went nuclear (literally) in
1946 when Truman and the U.S. joined in the fun and decided to figure out how we could carve
out that ancient prime piece of real estate and resurrect Israel. By 1948 ..violà
..there she was.
So now here we sit as the hundred year delusion that we knew what the hell we were doing
comes crashing down around us. Seriously, whoever the people have been who thought that a
country with the historical perspective of a toddler was going to be able to successfully
manage and manipulate a region filled with people who are still tribal in perspective and are
still holding grudges and settling scores from five thousand years ago were complete and
total arrogant morons. Every single one of them. Up to the present moment.
Which gets me down to those brass tacks I alluded to at the beginning of my comment.
Delusional crusades lead by arrogant morons always, always, always end up as ash heaps. So, I
would suggest we all prepare for that rapidly approaching conclusion accordingly. For me,
that means hitting my knees.
Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 1:00 pm
Middle Eastern people are no more "tribal" or prone to holding grudges than any other
people. Middle Eastern people have exhibited and practiced peaceful and tolerant living
arrangements within several different contexts over the centuries. Iraq had a fairly thriving
middle class and the Syrians are a cultured and educated people.
Gregory Herr , December 9, 2017 at 10:07 pm
Syrian society is constructed very much within the construct of close family ties and a
sense of a Syrian homeland. It is solely the business of the Syrian people to decide whether
the socialist Ba'ath government functions according to their own sense of realities and
standards. Some of those realities may include aspects of a necessitated national security
state (necessitated by CIA and Israeli subterfuge) that prompts shills to immediately
characterize the Assad government as "an authoritarian regime" and of course that's all you
need to know. Part of what pisses the West off about the Syrians is that they are so
competent, and that includes their intelligence and security services. One of the other parts
is the socialist example of government functioning in interests of the general population,
not selling out to vultures.
It bothers me that Mr. Lazare wrote: "Syria's Baathist government is hardly blameless in
this affair." Really? Well the Syrian government can hardly be blamed for the vile strategy
of using terrorist mercenaries to take or destroy a people's homeland–killing horrific
numbers of fathers, mothers, and children on the way to establish some kind of Wild West
control over Damascus that can then be manipulated for the typical elite deviances. What was
purposely planned and visited upon the Syrian people has had human consequences that were
known and disregarded by the planners. It has been and continues to be a grave crime against
our common humanity that should be raised to the roof of objection! People like Gambill
should be excoriated for their crass appraisal of human costs .and for their contrived and
twisted rationalizations and deceits. President Assad recently gave an interview to teleSUR
that is worth a listen. He talks about human costs with understanding for what he is talking
about. Gambill doesn't give a damn.
BASLE , December 9, 2017 at 10:46 am
From the October 1973 Yom Kippur War onward, the United States had no foreign policy in
the Middle East other than Israel's. Daniel Lazare should read "A clean break: a new strategy
for the Realm".
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:08 am
Yes, Israel is the cut-out or fence for US politicians stealing campaign money from the
federal budget.
US policy is that of the bribery sources and nothing else. And it believes that to be
professional competence.
For the majority of amoral opportunists of the US, money=power=virtue and they will attack
all who disagree.
"Official Washington helped unleash hell on Syria and across the Mideast behind the
naïve belief that jihadist proxies could be used to transform the region for the better,
explains Daniel Lazare."
Lazare makes the case very well about our amoral foreign policy but I think he errs in
saying our aim was to "transform the region for the better." Recent history, going back to
Afghanistan shows a very different goal, to defeat our enemies and the enemies of our allies
with little concern for the aftermath. Just observing what has happened to the people where
we supported extremists is evidence enough.
Peace on Earth, Goodwill toward men. We hope the conscience of our nation is bothered by
our behavior but we know that is not true, and we sleep very well, thank you.
Marilyn Vogt-Downey , December 9, 2017 at 11:18 am
I am stunned that anyone could be so foolish as to think that the US military machine, US
imperialism, does things "naively", bumbling like a helpless giant into wars that destroy
entire nations with no end in sight. One need not be a "conspiracy theorist" to understand
that the Pentagon does not control the world with an ever-expanding war budget equal to the
next 10 countries combined, that it does this just because it is stuck on the wrong path. No!
US imperialism develops these "big guns" to use them, to overpower, take over and dominate
the world for the sake of profits and protection of the right to exploit for private
profit.
There is ample evidence–see the Brookings Institute study among many
others–that the Gulf monarchies–flunkies of US imperialism–who "host"
dozens of US military bases in the region, some of them central to US war
strategy–initiated and nourished and armed and financed the "jihadi armies" in Syria
AND Libya AND elsewhere; they did not do this on their own. The US government–the
executive committee of the US ruling class–does not naively support the Gulf monarchies
because it doesn't know any better! Washington (following British imperialism) organized,
established and backed these flunky regimes. They are autocratic, antediluvian regimes,
allowing virtually civil rights, with no local proletariat to speak of, no popular base. They
are no more than sheriffs for imperialism in that region of the world, along with the Zionist
state of Israel, helping imperialism do the really dirty work.
Look at the evidence. Stop the totally foolish assessment that the US government spends
all this money on a war machine just to "naively" blunder into wars that level entire
nations–and is not taking on destruction of the entire continent of Africa to eliminate
any obstacles to its domination.
No! That is foolish and destructive. Unless we look in the face what is going on–the
US government since its "secret" intervention in Afghanistan in the 1970s and 1980s, has
recruited, trained, armed, funded and relied on jihadi armies to unseat regimes and
destabilize and destroy populations and regimes the US government wants to overthrow, and
destroy, any that could potentially develop into an alternative model of nationalist,
bourgeois industrial development on any level.
Wake up!!! The evidence is there. There is no reason to bumble and bungle along as if we
are in the dark.
Randal Marlin , December 9, 2017 at 11:26 am
Daniel Pipes, from what I've read of him, is among those who counsel the U.S. government
to use its military power to support the losing side in any civil wars fought within Israel's
enemy states, so that the wars will continue, sparing Israel the threat of unified enemy
states. What normal human beings consider a humanitarian disaster, repeated in Iraq, Syria
and Libya, would be reckoned a success according to this way of thinking.
The thinking would appear to lead to similar treatment of Iran, with even more catastrophic
consequences.
Behind all this is the thinking that the survival of Israel outweighs anything else in any
global ethical calculus.
Those who don't accept this moral premise but who believe in supporting the survival of
Israel have their work cut out for them.
This work would be made easier if the U.S. population saw clearly what was going on, instead
of being preoccupied with salacious sexual misconduct stories or other distractions.
Zachary Smith , December 9, 2017 at 2:43 pm
A Russian interceptor has been scrambled to stop a rogue US fighter jet from actively
interfering with an anti-terrorist operation, the Russian Defense Ministry said. It also
accused the US of provoking close encounters with the Russian jets in Syria.
A US F-22 fighter was preventing two Russian Su-25 strike aircraft from bombing an
Islamic State (IS, former ISIS) base to the west of the Euphrates November 23, according to
the ministry. The ministry's spokesman, Major General Igor Konashenkov described the
episode as yet another example of US aircraft attempts to prevent Russian forces from
carrying out strikes against Islamic State.
"The F-22 launched decoy flares and used airbrakes while constantly maneuvering [near
the Russian strike jets], imitating an air fight," Konashenkov said. He added that the US
jet ceased its dangerous maneuvers only after a Russian Su-35S fighter jet joined the two
strike planes.
If this story is true, then it illustrates a number of things. First, the US is still
providing ISIS air cover. Second, either the F-22 pilot or his commander is dumber than dirt.
The F-22 may be a fine airplane, but getting into a contest with an equally fine non-stealth
airplane at eyeball distances means throwing away every advantage of the super-expensive
stealth.
Israel obtained operational nuclear weapons capability by 1967, with the mass production
of nuclear warheads occurring immediately after the Six-Day War. In addition to the Israeli
nuclear arsenal, Israel has offensive chemical and biological warfare stockpiles.
Israel, the Middle East's sole nuclear power, is not a signatory to the Nuclear
Non-Proliferation Treaty.
In 2015, the US-based Institute for Science and International Security estimated that
Israel had 115 nuclear warheads. Outside estimates of Israel's nuclear arsenal range up to
400 nuclear weapons.
Israeli nuclear weapons delivery mechanisms include Jericho 3 missiles, with a range of
4,800 km to 6,500 km (though a 2004 source estimated its range at up to 11,500 km), as well
as regional coverage from road mobile Jericho 2 IRBMs.
Additionally, Israel is believed to have an offshore nuclear capability using
submarine-launched nuclear-capable cruise missiles, which can be launched from the Israeli
Navy's Dolphin-class submarines.
The Israeli Air Force has F-15I and F-16I Sufa fighter aircraft are capable of delivering
tactical and strategic nuclear weapons at long distances using conformal fuel tanks and
supported by their aerial refueling fleet of modified Boeing 707's.
In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a former technician at Dimona, fled to the United Kingdom and
revealed to the media some evidence of Israel's nuclear program and explained the purposes of
each building, also revealing a top-secret underground facility directly below the
installation.
The Mossad, Israel's secret service, sent a female agent who lured Vanunu to Italy, where
he was kidnapped by Mossad agents and smuggled to Israel aboard a freighter. An Israeli court
then tried him in secret on charges of treason and espionage, and sentenced him to eighteen
years imprisonment.
At the time of Vanunu's kidnapping, The Times reported that Israel had material for
approximately 20 hydrogen bombs and 200 fission bombs by 1986. In the spring of 2004, Vanunu
was released from prison, and placed under several strict restrictions, such as the denial of
a passport, freedom of movement limitations and restrictions on communications with the
press. Since his release, he has been rearrested and charged multiple times for violations of
the terms of his release.
Safety concerns about this 40-year-old reactor have been reported. In 2004, as a
preventive measure, Israeli authorities distributed potassium iodide anti-radiation tablets
to thousands of residents living nearby. Local residents have raised concerns regarding
serious threats to health from living near the reactor.
According to a lawsuit filed in Be'er Sheva Labor Tribunal, workers at the center were
subjected to human experimentation in 1998. According to Julius Malick, the worker who
submitted the lawsuit, they were given drinks containing uranium without medical supervision
and without obtaining written consent or warning them about risks of side effects.
In April 2016 the U.S. National Security Archive declassified dozens of documents from
1960 to 1970, which detail what American intelligence viewed as Israel's attempts to
obfuscate the purpose and details of its nuclear program. The Americans involved in
discussions with Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and other Israelis believed the country was
providing "untruthful cover" about intentions to build nuclear weapons.
mike k , December 9, 2017 at 6:38 pm
The machinations of those seeking to gain advantages for themselves by hurting others, are
truly appalling. If we fail to name evil for what it is, then we fail as human beings.Those
who look the other way as their country engages in an organized reign of terror, are
complicit in that enormous crime.
Den Lille Abe , December 9, 2017 at 8:54 pm
The path the US has chosen since the end of WWII has been over dead bodies. In the name of
"security", bringing "Freedom" and "Democracy" and complete unconstrained greed it has
trampled countless nations into piles of rubble.
To say it is despised or loathed is an overwhelming understatement. It is almost universally
hated in the third world. Rightly.
Bringing this monstrosity to a halt is a difficult task, and probably cannot be done
militarily without a nuclear war, economically could in the end have the same outcome, then
how?
Easy! Ruin its population. This process has started, long ago.
The decline in the US of health, general wealth, nutrition, production, education, equality,
ethics and morals is already showing as cracks in the fabrics of the US.
A population of incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies, armed to teeth with guns, in a
country with a crumbling infrastructure, full of environmental disasters is 21 st century for
most Americans.
In all the areas I mentioned the US is going backwards compared to most other countries.
So the monster will come down.
turk151 , December 9, 2017 at 10:20 pm
I think you are being a little hard on the incarcerated, obese, low iQ zealot junkies,
armed to teeth with guns
I am not sure who is more loathsome the evangelicals who were supporting the Bush / Cheney
cabal murderous wars until the bitter end or the liberal intelligentsia careerist
cheerleaders for Obama and Hilary's Wars in Iraq and Syria, who also dont give a damn about
another Arab country being destroyed and sold into slavery as long as Hillary gets elected.
At least with the former group, you can chalk it up to a lack of education.
Linda Wood , December 10, 2017 at 1:52 am
This is possibly the most intelligent and hopeful discussion I have read since 9/11. It
says that at least some Americans do see that we have a fascist cell in our government. That
is the first step in finding a way to unplug it. Best wishes to all of you who have written
here. We will find a way to put war out of business.
Barbara van der Wal-Kylstra , December 10, 2017 at 2:46 am
I think this pattern of using Salafists for regime change started already in Afghanistan,
with Brzezinski plotting with Saudi-Arabia and Pakistan to pay and train Osama bin Laden to
attack the pro Russia regime and trying to get the USSR involved in it, also trying to blame
the USSR for its agression, like they did in Syri"r?
Sam F , December 10, 2017 at 9:18 am
Yes, the Brzezinski/Reagan support of fanatic insurgencies began in AfPak and was revived
for the zionists.
Russia happened to be on the side more or less tending to progress in both cases, so it had
to be opposed.
The warmongers are always the US MIC/intel, allied with the anti-American zionist fascists
for Mideast wars.
Luutzen , December 10, 2017 at 9:15 am
Sheldon Adelson, Soros, Saban all wanted carving up of Arabic states into small sectarian
pieces (No Nasseric pan-Arabic states, a threat to Israël). And protracted wars of total
destruction. Easy.
mike k , December 10, 2017 at 11:05 am
The US Military is part of the largest terrorist organization on Earth. For the super rich
and powerful rulers of that US Mafia, the ignorant religious fanatics and other tools of
Empire are just pawns in their game of world domination and universal slavery for all but
themselves. These monsters of evil delight in profiting from the destruction of others; but
their insatiable greed for more power will never be satisfied, and will become the cause of
the annihilation of every living thing – including themselves. But like other sold out
human addicts, at this point they don't really care, and will blindly pursue their nightmare
quest to the very end – and perhaps they secretly hope that that final end of
everything will at last quench their burning appetite for blood and gold.
Joe Tedesky , December 10, 2017 at 11:12 am
I'm leaving a link to a very long David Swanson article, where Mr Swanson goes into quite
a lot of detail to how the U.S. wages war.
What's interesting of course is how not just Washington, but much of the 'left' also
cheered on the jihadists.
Of course, they were told (by whom?) that the jihadists were 'democratic rebels' and
'freedom fighters' who just wanted to 'bring democracy' to Syria, and get rid of the 'tyrant
Assad.' 5 years later, so much of the nonsense about "local councils" and "white helmets" has
been exposed for what it was. Yet many 'free thinking' people bought the propaganda. Just
like they do on Russiagate. Who needs an "alt-right" when America's "left" is a total
disgrace?
When national security establishment is trying to undermine sitting President this is iether color revolution or coup d'état. In
the USa it looks more like color revolution.
"Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president
of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized."
Notable quotes:
"... The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview. ..."
"... Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy. ..."
"... In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize. ..."
"... In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring. ..."
"... From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference. But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult. ..."
"... Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie Sanders. ..."
"... The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority." ..."
"... Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized. I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater. ..."
"... What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price. Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves? ..."
"... Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as much in the fascist deep-state bag. ..."
"... How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read, but not to live in! ..."
"... Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter. ..."
"... Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of shock and disbelief. ..."
"... One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation of the democracy in the US. ..."
"... In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary. ..."
The investigation to somehow blame Russia for Donald Trump's election has now merged with another establishment goal of isolating
and intimidating whistleblowers and other dissidents, as Dennis J Bernstein describes.
The Russia-gate investigation has reached into the ranks of journalism with the House Intelligence Committee's subpoena of Randy
Credico, who produced a series about WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange for Pacifica Radio and apparently is suspected of having passed
on early word about leaked Democratic emails to Donald Trump's supporter Roger Stone.
The Credico subpoena, after he declined a request for a "voluntary" interview, underscores how the investigation is moving
into areas of "guilt by association" and further isolating whistleblowers who defy the powers-that-be through unauthorized release
of information to the public, a point made by National Security Agency whistleblower Thomas Drake in an interview.
Drake knows well what it means to blow the whistle on government misconduct and get prosecuted for it. A former senior NSA
executive, Drake complained about a multi-billion-dollar fraud, waste, and widespread violation of the rights of civilians through
secret mass surveillance programs. As a result, the Obama administration indicted Drake in 2010, "as the first whistleblower since
Daniel Ellsberg charged with espionage," according to the Institute for Public Accuracy.
In 2011, the government's case against him, which carried a potential 35 years in prison, collapsed. Drake went free in a
plea deal and was awarded the 2011 Ridenhour Truth Telling Prize.
I interviewed Drake about the significance of Credico's subpoena, which Credico believes resulted from his journalism about the
persecution of Julian Assange for releasing information that powerful people would prefer kept hidden from the public. (I had a small
role in Credico's 14-part radio series, Julian Assange: Countdown to Freedom . It was broadcast first as part of his Live
on the Fly Series, over WBAI and later on KPFA and across the country on community radio.)
Credico got his start as a satirist and became a political candidate for mayor of New York City and later governor of New York,
making mainstream politicians deal with issues they would rather not deal with.
I spoke to Thomas Drake by telephone on Nov. 30, 2017.
Dennis Bernstein: How do you look at Russiagate, based on what you know about what has already transpired in terms of the
movement of information? How do you see Credico's role in this?
Thomas Drake: Information is the coin of the realm. It is the currency of power. Anyone who questions authority or is perceived
as mocking authority -- as hanging out with "State enemies" -- had better be careful. But this latest development is quite troubling,
I must say. This is the normalization of everything that has been going on since 9/11. Randy is a sort of 21st century Diogenes who
is confronting authority and pointing out corruption. This subpoena sends a chilling message. It's a double whammy for Randy because,
in the eyes of the US government, he is a media figure hanging out with the wrong media figure [Julian Assange].
Dennis Bernstein: Could you say a little bit about what your work was and what you tried to do with your expose?
Thomas Drake: My experience was quite telling, in terms of how far the government will go to try to destroy someone's life.
The attempt by the government to silence me was extraordinary. They threw everything they had at me, all because I spoke the truth.
I spoke up about abuse of power, I spoke up about the mass surveillance regime. My crime was that I made the choice to go to the
media. And the government was not just coming after me, they were sending a really chilling message to the media: If you print this,
you are also under the gun.
Dennis Bernstein: We have heard the charges again and again, that this was a Russian hack. What was the source? Let's trace
it back as best we can.
Thomas Drake:In this hyper-inflated, politicized environment, it is extremely difficult to wade through the massive
amount of disinformation on all sides. Hacking is something all modern nation-states engage in, including the United States, including
Russia. The challenge here is trying to figure out who the players are, whose ox is being gored, and who is doing the goring.
From all accounts, Trump was duly elected. Now you have the Mueller investigation and the House investigation. Where is this
all leading? The US intelligence agency hasn't done itself any favors. The ICA provides no proof either, in terms of allegations
that the Russians "hacked" the election. We do have the evidence disclosed by Reality Winner that maybe there was some interference.
But the hyper-politicization is making it extraordinarily difficult.
The advantage that intelligence has is that they can hide behind what they are doing. They don't actually have to tell the truth,
they can shade it, they can influence it and shape it. This is where information can be politicized and used as a weapon. Randy has
found himself caught up in these investigations by virtue of being a media figure and hanging out with "the wrong people."
Dennis Bernstein: It looks like the Russiagaters in Congress are trying to corner Randy. All his life he has spoken truth
to power. But what do you think the role of the press should be?
Thomas Drake: The press amplifies just about everything they focus on, especially with today's 24-hour, in-your-face social
media. Even the mainstream media is publishing directly to their webpages. You have to get behind the cacophony of all that noise
and ask, "Why?" What are the intentions here?
I believe there are still enough independent journalists who are looking further and deeper. But clearly there are those who are
hell-bent on making life as difficult as possible for the current president and those who are going to defend him to the hilt. I
was not surprised at all that Trump won. A significant percentage of the American electorate were looking for something different.
Dennis Bernstein : Well, if you consider the content of those emails .Certainly, the Clinton folks got rid of Bernie
Sanders.
Thomas Drake: That would have been an interesting race, to have Bernie vs. Trump. Sanders was appealing, especially to
young audiences. He was raising legitimate issues.
Dennis Bernstein: In Clinton, they had a known quantity who supported the national security state.
Thomas Drake:The national security establishment was far more comfortable having Clinton as president. Someone central
to my own case, General Michael Hayden, just a couple days ago went apoplectic because of a tweet from Trump taking on the mainstream
media. Hayden got over 100,000 likes on his response. Well, Hayden was central to what we did in deep secrecy at the highest levels
of government after 9/11, engaging in widespread surveillance and then justifying it as "raw executive authority."
Now you have this interesting dynamic where the national security establishment is effectively undermining a duly elected
president of the United States. I recognize that Trump is vulnerable, but these types of investigations often become highly politicized.
I worry that what is really happening is being sacrificed on the altar of entertainment and the stage of political theater.
What is happening to Randy is symptomatic of a larger trend. If you dare speak truth to power, you are going to pay the price.
Is Randy that much of a threat, just because he is questioning authority? Are we afraid of the press? Are we afraid of having the
uncomfortable conversations, of dealing with the inconvenient truths about ourselves?
"Raw Executive Authority" means Totalitarianism/Fascism.
exiled off mainstreet , December 7, 2017 at 4:23 pm
Yeah, it is definitely a way of describing the concept of fascism without using the word. The present Yankee regime seems
to be quite far along that road, and the full-on types seem to be engaged in a coup to eliminate those they fear may not be as
much in the fascist deep-state bag.
It is highly encouraging to know that a great many good and decent men and women Americans are 100% supportive of Mr, Randy
Credico as he prepares for his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. Remember all those standing right there beside
you, speak what rightly needs to be spoken, and make history Mr. Credico!
jaycee , December 7, 2017 at 3:56 pm
The intensification of panic/hysteria was obviously triggered by the shock election of Trump. Where this is all heading is
on display in Australia, as the government is writing legislation to "criminalise covert and deceptive activities of foreign actors
that fall short of espionage but are intended to interfere with our democratic systems and processes or support the intelligence
activities of a foreign government." The legislation will apparently be accompanied by new requirements of public registration
of those deemed "foreign agents". (see http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2017/12/07/auch-d07.html
).
This will be an attack on free speech, free thought, and political freedoms, justified by an orchestrated hysteria which ridiculously
assumes a "pure" political realm (i.e. the "homeland") under assault by impure foreign agents and their dirty ideas. Yes, that
is a fascist construct and the liberal establishment will see it through, not the alt-right blowhards.
mike k , December 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm
How disgusting to have to live today in the society so accurately described by Orwell in 1984. It was a nice book to read,
but not to live in!
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:48 am
Actually Mike, the book was a prophesy but you aren't seen nothing yet. You me and the rest of the posters here may well find
ourselves going for a visit to room 101 yet.
fudmier , December 7, 2017 at 4:42 pm
Those who govern (527 of them) at the pleasure of the constitution are about to breach the contract that entitles them to govern.
Limiting the scope of information allowed to those who are the governed, silencing the voices of those with concerns and serious
doubts, policing every word uttered by those who are the governed, as well as abusing the constitutional privilege of force and
judicial authority, to deny peaceful protests of the innocents is approaching the final straw.
The governors and their corporate sponsors have imposed on those the governors govern much concern. Exactly the condition that
existed prior to July 4, 1776, which elicited the following:
When in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the Political bands which connected them
with another, and to assume among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the laws of nature and of Nature's
God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to
the separation.
Those who govern (527 of them and the puppet master oligarch behind them) will make certain that there's no support for the
next declaration. There's no respect to the opinions of the mankind, what matters is keeping the current status quo in place and
further advance it by silencing the independent media.
Maybe when the next "Mother of all bubbles" come, there's an opportunity for the mankind to be heard, but it's doubtful. What
has taken place during the last bubble is that the rich has gotten richer and the poor, well, you know the routine.
Truth is he enemy of coercive power. Lies and secrecy are essential in leading the sheeple to their slaughter.
john wilson , December 8, 2017 at 5:44 am
Perhaps the one good thing about Trumps election is that its shows democracy is still just about alive and breathing in
the US, because as is pointed out in this article, Trump was never expected to win and those who lost are still in a state of
shock and disbelief.
Trump's election has also shown us in vivid technicolour, just what is really going on in the deep state. Absolutely none of
this stuff would have come out had Clinton won and anything there was would have been covered up as though under the concrete
foundation of a tower block. However, Trump still has four years left and as a British prime minister once said, "a week is a
long time in politics". Well four more years of Trump is a hell of a lot longer so who knows what might happen in that time.
One things for sure: the Neocons, the deep state, and all the rest of the skunks that infest Washington will make absolutely
sure that future elections will go the way as planned, so perhaps we should celebrate Trump, because he may well be the last manifestation
of the democracy in the US.
Christene Bartels , December 8, 2017 at 9:57 am
In the end, what will bring this monstrously lumbering "Russia-gate" dog and pony show crashing down is that stupid, fake
Fusion GPS dossier that was commissioned, paid for, and disseminated by Team Hillary and the DNC. Then, as with the sinking of
the Titanic, all of the flotsam and jetsam floating within its radius of destruction will go down with it. What will left to pluck
from the lifeboats afterwards is anyone's guess. All thanks to Hillary.
Apparently, Santa isn't the only one making a list and checking it twice this year. He's going to have to share the limelight
with Karma.
"... The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. ..."
"... Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda narrative about the case. Magnitsky was actually an accountant . ..."
"... By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another. ..."
"... I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq. The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many, people still remember. ..."
"... At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political right . Amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation. ..."
"... The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not enough anymore. ..."
"... John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonizing Russia, I would propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any day. ..."
"... So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia? If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template of economic imperialism? ..."
"... In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making $100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave. ..."
"... I do not know the truth about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organizing mass genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians as murdering savages ..."
"... Browder is a spook. ..."
"... This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media. ..."
"... In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes ..."
"... I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up. ..."
"... The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy. ..."
"... The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc etc. Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket.. ..."
"... The Canary is publishing mainstream russophobia? ..."
Vladimir Putin finally confesses his entire responsibility for everything bad that has ever happened since the beginning of time
The decline of the falsely self-described "quality" media outlet The Guardian/Observer into a deranged fake news site pushing
anti-Russian hate propaganda continues apace. Take a look at
this gem :
The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has accused prominent British businessman Bill Browder of being a "serial killer" –
the latest extraordinary attempt by the Kremlin to frame one of its most high-profile public enemies.
But Putin has not been reported anywhere else as making any recent statement about Browder whatever, and the Observer article
makes no further mention of Putin's supposed utterance or the circumstances in which it was supposedly made.
As the rest of the article makes clear, the suspicions against Browder were actually voiced by Russian police investigators and
not by Putin at all.
The Observer fabricated a direct quote from the Russian president for their propaganda purposes without any regard to basic journalistic
standards. They wanted to blame Putin personally for the suspicions of some Russian investigators, so they just invented an imaginary
statement from him so they could conveniently do so.
What is really going on here is the classic trope of demonisation propaganda in which the demonised leader is conflated with all
officials of their government and with the targeted country itself, so as to simplify and personalise the narrative of the subsequent
Two Minutes Hate to be unleashed against them.
When, as in this case, the required substitution of the demonised leader for their country can't be wrung out of the facts even
through the most vigorous twisting, a disreputable fake news site like The Guardian/Observer is free to simply make up new, alternative
facts that better fit their disinformative agenda. Because facts aren't at all sacred when the official propaganda line demands lies.
In the same article, the documents from Russian investigators naming Browder as a suspect in certain crimes are first "seen as"
a frame-up (by the sympathetic chorus of completely anonymous observers yellow journalism can always call on when an unsupported
claim needs a spurious bolstering) and then outright labelled as such (see quote above) as if this alleged frame-up is a proven fact.
Which it isn't.
No evidence is required down there in the Guardian/Observer journalistic gutter before unsupported claims against Russian officials
can be treated as unquestionable pseudo-facts, just as opponents of Putin can commit no crime for the outlet's hate-befuddled hacks.
The above falsifications were brought to the attention of the Observer's so-called Readers Editor – the official at the Guardian/Observer
responsible for "independently" defending the outlet's misdeeds against outraged readers – who did nothing. By now the article has
rolled off the site's front page, rendering any possible future correction nugatory in any case.
Later in the same article Magnitsky is described as having been Browder's "tax lawyer" a standard trope of the Western propaganda
narrative about the case. Magnitsky
was actually an accountant .
A trifecta of fakery in one article! That makes crystal clear what the Guardian meant in
this article , published at precisely the same moment as the disinformation cited above, when it said:
"We know what you are doing," Theresa May said of Russia. It's not enough to know. We need to do something about it.
By "doing something about it" they mean they're going to tell one hostile lie about Russia after another.
From the 'liberal' Guardian/Observer wing of the rightwing bourgeois press, spot the differences with the article in the Mail
on Sunday by Nick Robinson?
This thing seems to have been cobbled together by a guy called Nick Robinson. The same BBC Nick Robinson that hosts the Today
Programme? I dunno, one feels really rather depressed at how low our media has sunk.
I think huge swathes of the media, in the eyes of many people, have never really recovered from the ghastly debacle that was their
dreadful coverage of the reasons for the illegal attack on Iraq. The journalists want us to forget and move on, but many, many,
people still remember.
Nothing happened afterwards. There was no tribunal to examine the media's role in that massive international
crime against humanity and things actually got worse post Iraq, which the attack on Libya and Syria illustrates.
Exactly: in my opinion there should be life sentences banning scribblers who printed lies and bloodthirsty kill, kill, kill articles
from ever working again in the media.
Better still, make them go fight right now in Yemen. Amazing how quickly truth will spread if journalists know they have a good chance of dying if they print lies and falsehoods
..
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and the
breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers the Guardian lurches even further to the political
right . Amazing, though not really surprising. The Guardian's role appears to be to 'coral' radical and leftist ideas and opinions
and 'groom' the educated middle class into accepting their own subjugation.
The Guardian's writers get so much, so wrong, so often it's staggering and nobody gets the boot, except for the people who
allude to the incompetence at the heart of the Guardian. They fail dismally on Trump, Brexit and Corbyn and yet carry on as if
everything is fine and dandy. Nothing to complain about here, mover along now.
I suppose it's because they are actually media aristocrats living in a world of privilege, and they, as members of the ruling
elite, look after one another regardless of how poorly they actually perform. This is typical of an elite that's on the ropes
and doomed. They choose to retreat from grubby reality into a parallel world where their own dogmas aren't challenged and they
begin to believe their propaganda is real and not an artificial contruct. This is incredibly dangerous for a ruling elite because
society becomes brittle and weaker by the day as the ruling dogmas become hollow and ritualized, but without traction in reality
and real purpose.
The Guardian is a bit like the Tory government, lost and without any real ideas or ideals. The slow strangulation of the CIF
symbolizes the crisis of confidence at the Guardian. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and is ready to brush
it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or opposition, well, this
is a sign of decadence and profound weakness. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of solutions to our problems.
All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and status, and that's really not
enough anymore.
All our problems are pathetically and conviniently blamed on the Russians and their Demon King and his vast army of evil Trolls.
It's like a political version of the Lord of the Rings.
Don't expect the Guardian to cover the biggest military build-up (NATO) on Russia's borders since Hitler's 1941 invasion.
John Pilger has described the "respectable" liberal press (Guardian, NYT etc) as the most effective component of the propaganda
system, precisely BECAUSE it is respectable and trusted. As to why the Guardian is so insistent in demonizing Russia, I would
propose that is integrates them further with a Brexit-ridden Tory government. Its Blairite columnists prefer May over Corbyn any
day.
The Guardian is trying to rescue citizens from 'dreadful dangers that we cannot see, or do not underdstand' – in other words they
play a central role in 'the power of nightmares'
So Russians cannot do business in America but Americans must be protected to do business in Russia?
If you look at Ukraine and how US corporations are benefitting from the US-funded coup, you ask what the US did in Russia in
the 1990s and the effect it had on US business and ordinary Russian people. Were the two consistent with a common US template
of economic imperialism?
In particular, you ask what Bill Browder was doing, his links to US spying organisations etc etc. You ask if he supported the
rape of Russian State assets, turned a blind eye to the millions of Russians dying in the 1990s courtesy of catastrophic economic
conditions. If he was killing people to stay alive, he would not have been the only one. More important is whether him making
$100m+ in Russia needed conditions where tens of millions of Russians were starving .and whether he saw that as acceptable collateral
damage ..he made a proactive choice, after all, to go live in Moscow. It is not like he was born there and had no chance to leave.
I do not know the truth about Bill Browder, but one thing I do know: very powerful Americans are capable of organizing mass
genocide to become rich, so there is no possible basis for painting all American businessmen as philanthropists and all Russians
as murdering savages ..
It's perfectly possible, in fact the norm historically, for people to believe passionately in the existence of invisible threats
to their well-being, which, when examined calmly from another era, resemble a form of mass-hysteria or collective madness. For
example; the religious faith/dogma that Satan, demons and witches were all around us. An invisible, parallel, world, by the side
of our own that really existed and we were 'at war with.' Satan was our adversary, the great trickster and disseminator of 'fake
news' opposed to the 'good news' provided by the Gospels.
What's remarkable, disturbing and frightening is how closely our media resemble a religious cult or the Catholic Church in
the Middle Ages. The journalists have taken on a role that's close to that of a priesthood. They function as a 'filtering' layer
between us and the world around us. They are, supposedly, uniquely qualified to understand the difference between truth and lies,
or what's right and wrong, real news and propaganda. The Guardian actually likes this role. They our the guardians of the truth
in a chaotic world.
This reminds one of the role of the clergy. Their role was to stand between ordinary people and the 'complexities' of the Bible
and seperate the Truths it containedf from wild and 'fake' interpretations, which could easily become dangerous and undermine
the social order and fundamental power relationships.
The big challenge to the role of the Church happened when the printing press allowed the ordinary people to access the information
themselves and worst still when the texts were translated into the common language and not just Latin. Suddenly people could access
the texts, read and begin to interpret and understand for themselves. It's hard to imagine that pepeople were actually burned
alive in England for smuggling the Bible in english translation a few centuries ago. That's how dangerous the State regarded such
a 'crime.'
One can compare the translation of the Bible and the challenge to the authority of the Church and the clergy as 'guardians
of the truth' to what's happeing today with the rise of the Internet and something like Wikileaks, where texts and infromation
are made available uncensored and raw and the role of the traditional 'media church' and the journalist priesthood is challenged.
We're seeing a kind of media counter-reformation. That's why the Guardian turned on Assange so disgracefully and what Wikileaks
represented.
A brilliant historical comparison. They're now on the legal offensive in censoring the internet of course, because in truth the
filter system is wholly vulnerable. Alternative media has been operating freely, yet the majority have continued to rely on MSM
as if it's their only source of (dis)information, utilising our vast internet age to the pettiness of social media and prank videos.
Marx was right: capitalist society alienates people from their own humanity. We're now aliens, deprived of our original being
and floating in a vacuum of Darwinist competition and barbarism. And we wonder why climate change is happening?
Apparently we are "living in disorientating times" according to Viner, she goes on to say that "championing the public interest
is at the heart of the Guardian's mission".
Really? How is it possible for her to say that when many of the controversial articles which appear in the Guardian are not
open for comment any more. They have adopted now a view that THEIR "opinion" should not be challenged, how is that in the public
interest?
In the Observer on Sunday a piece also appeared smearing RT entitled:
"MPs defend fees of up to Ł1,000 an hour to appear on 'Kremlin propaganda' channel"
However they allowed comments which make interesting reading. Many commenter's saw through their ruse and although the most vociferous
critics of the Graun have been banished, but even the mild mannered ones which remain appear not the buy into the idea that RT
is any different than other media outlets. With many expressing support for the news and op-ed outlet for giving voice to those
who the MSM ignore – including former Guardian writers from time to time.
Why Viner's words are so poisonous is that the Graun under her stewardship has become a agitprop outlet offering no balance.
In the below linked cringe worthy article there is no mention of RT being under attack in the US and having to register itself
and staff as foreign agents. NO DEFENCE OF ATTACKS ON FREEDOM OF THE PRESS by the US state is mentioned.
Surely this issue is at the heart of championing public interest?
For the political/media/business elites (I suppose you could call them 'the Establishment') in the US and UK, the main problem
with RT seems to be that a lot of people are watching it. I wonder how long it will be before access is cut.
RT is launching a French-language channel next month. We are already being warned by the French MSM about how RT makes up fake
news to further Putin's evil propaganda aims (unlike said MSM, we are told).
Basically, elites just don't trust the people (this is certainly a constant in French political life).
It's not just that they don't allow comments on many of their articles, but even on the articles where CiF is enabled, they ban
any accounts that disagree with their narrative. The end result is that Guardianistas get the false impression everyone shares
their view and that they are in the majority.
The Guardian moderators are like Scientology leaders who banish any outsiders for fear of influencing their cult members.
Everyone knows that Russia-gate is a feat of mass hypnosis, mesmerized from DNC financed lies. The Trump collusion myth is baseless
and becoming dangerously hysterical: but conversely, the Clinton collusion scandal is not so easy to allay. Whilst it may turn
out to be the greatest story never told: it looks substantive enough to me. HRC colluded with Russian oligarchy to the tune of
$145m of "donations" into her slush fund. In return, Rosatom gained control of Uranium One.
A curious adjunct to this corruption: HRC opposed the Magnitsky Act in 2012. Given her subsequent rabid Russophobia: you'd
have thought that if the Russians (as it has been spun) arrested a brave whistleblowing tax lawyer and murdered him in prison
– she would have been quite vocal in her condemnation. No, she wanted to make Russia
great again. It's amazing how $145m can focus ones
attention away from ones natural instinct.
[Browder and Magnitsky were as corrupt as each other: the story that the Russians took over Browder's hedge fund and implicated
them both in a $230m tax fraud and corruption scandal is as fantastical as the "Golden Shower" dossier. However, it seems to me
Magnitsky's death was preventable (he died from complications of pancreatitis, for which it seems he was initially refused treatment
) ]
So if we turn the clock back to 2010-2013, it sure looks to me as though we have a Russian collusion scandal: only it's not
one the Guardian will ever want to tell. Will it come out when the FBI 's "secret" informant (William D Cambell) testifies to
Congress sometime this week? Not in the Guardian, because their precious Hillary Clinton is the real scandal here.
This "tactic" – a bold or outrageous claim made in the headline or in the first few sentences of a piece that is proven false
in the very same article – is becoming depressingly common in the legacy media.
In other words, the so-called respectable media knowingly prints outright lies for propaganda and clickbait purposes.
I dropped a line to a friend yesterday saying "only in a parallel universe would a businessman/shady dealer/tax evader such as
Browder be described as an "anti-corruption campaigner."" Those not familiar with the history of Browder's grandfather, after
whom a whole new "deviation" in leftist thinking was named, should look it up.
Some months ago you saw tweets saying Russophobia had hit ridiculous levels. They hadn't seen anything yet. It's scary how easily
people can be brainwashed.
The US are the masters of molesting other nations. It's not even a secret what they've been up to. Look at their budgets or
the size of the intelligence buildings. Most journalists know full well of their programs, including those on social media, which
they even reported on a few years back. The Guardian run stories by the CIA created and US state funded RFE/RL & then tell us
with a straight face that RT is state propaganda which is destroying our democracy.
The madness spreads: today The Canary has/had an article 'proving' that the 'Russians' were responsible for Brexit, Trump, etc
etc.
Then there is the neo-liberal 'President' of the EU charging that the extreme right wing and Russophobic warmongers in the Polish
government are in fact, like the President of the USA, in Putin's pocket..
This outbreak is reaching the dimensions of the sort of mass hysteria that gave us St Vitus' dance. Oh and the 'sonic' terrorism
practised against US diplomats in Havana, in which crickets working for the evil one (who he?) appear to have been responsible
for a breach in diplomatic relations.
It couldn't have happened to a nicer empire.
"... Sean Gervasi (1933-1996) spent the latter part of his career exposing the role of the United States and Western powers in the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia. He was working on a book,Balkan Roulette, at the time of his death. ..."
"... New York Amsterdam News ..."
"... Le Monde Diplomatique ..."
"... Covert Action Information Bulletin ..."
"... Global Research ..."
"... Capitalism in the Web of Life ..."
"... An Inconvenient Truth ..."
"... Sean Gervasi (1933-1996) spent the latter part of his career exposing the role of the United States and Western powers in the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia. He was working on a book,Balkan Roulette, at the time of his death. ..."
Although the United States played a crucial role in WWII, it was slow to get involved and it
let the Soviet Union do much of the heavy lifting and suffer the heaviest losses. The United
States had a lot of help in achieving the victory Mr. Gore claims for America, and we could
assume he knows this, so the way he chose to describe historical events is telling.
Perhaps acknowledging the reality would have detracted from his second point about "bringing
down communism." Everyone knows that what he is referring to so proudly is the destabilization
and destruction of the USSR, the Warsaw bloc nations, and Yugoslavia, not the abstract notion
of communism. He is referring to a "victory" which precipitated civil wars and a disastrous
collapse of the economy and social welfare systems in these countries, one that killed and
impoverished millions. In China, Cuba and the DPRK, contrary to what he stated, these nations'
versions of socialism haven't been brought down at all. [1992]
Explicitly describing the "bringing down of communism" as America's deliberate actions to
dismantle the USSR might run the risk of reminding the audience about the illegality of
interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, and it might have reminded people of
what a betrayal this was of America's WWII ally and partner in the détente of the 1970s.
The inconvenient truth is that the USSR was the WWII ally that played a crucial role in the
victory that Mr. Gore claimed solely for America.
Nonetheless, the comment about "bringing down communism" is refreshingly, and maybe
accidentally, very honest. Most descriptions of the Soviet collapse, even those done by
historians specializing in this field, pay little attention to American efforts to undermine
the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s. The political class always denied that America had a
plan to dismantle the USSR, and denied having any significant influence on events which they
claim arose from domestic causes. If America's influence is addressed at all, it is considered
as a matter of speculation, a mystery hardly worth thinking about when one can more easily look
at the dramatic events that occurred on the surface within the Soviet Union in the last decade
of its existence. The following transcript of the lecture by Sean Gervasi, delivered in 1992,
shortly after the collapse, is unique and valuable for what it reveals about the significant,
and perhaps decisive, American role in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In his conclusion, Mr. Gervasi came to this judgment:
The Soviet Union today, in the absence of this extraordinarily crafty, well-thought-out,
extremely costly strategy deployed by the Reagan administration, would be a society struggling
through great difficulties. It would still be a socialist society, at least of the kind that it
was. It would be far from perfect, but it would still be there, and I think, therefore, that
Western intervention made a crucial difference in this situation."
The journey to how he came to this conclusion is well worth the reader's time.
A final comment about Mr. Gore's remarks: He is oblivious to the inconvenient solution that
has been staring him in the face all these years: that the necessary reduction of carbon
emissions will require severe constraints on capitalism, a thesis developed by Jason W. Moore
in Capitalism in the Web of Life .[ii] Mr. Gore should know that a radical solution is
needed. In his recent sequel to An Inconvenient Truth he complains about the undue
influence of "money in politics" that has gotten so much worse over the last ten years, but
that's as deep as the class analysis and ideological exploration can go in America. He evinces
no awareness of the historical figures who developed answers to the problem of unaccountable
private control of a nation's government, resources and productive capacities. Gore is still
proud of having actively worked against a revolution in human affairs that aimed to curtail the
savage capitalism that led to the present ecological catastrophe.
In spite of the flaws one might see in what the Soviet Union actually became, flaws that
arose to a great extent because it had to fight against external threats throughout its
existence, the goals of the revolution of 1917 are still relevant to the crises of the 21st
century, and this is what makes Sean Gervasi's research so valuable now, after a quarter
century in which America doubled down on its "winning ways" and worsened the crises that were
evident long ago in 1992.
About Sean Gervasi
Sean Gervasi (1933-1996) spent the latter part of his career exposing the role of the
United States and Western powers in the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia. He was working on a
book,Balkan Roulette, at the time of his death.
Gervasi was an economist trained at the University of Geneva, Oxford and Cornell. His
political career began when he took a post as an economic adviser in the Kennedy
administration. He resigned in protest after the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.
After his resignation, Gervasi was never able to get work again in the United States as an
economist, despite his impressive academic credentials. He became a lecturer at the London
School of Economics after leaving Washington. Notwithstanding his great popularity, the school
refused to renew his contract in 1965.
During the 1970s and 1980s he was an adviser to a number of governments in Africa and the
Middle East, helping them navigate the hostile and predatory world of transnational
corporations and megabanks. He also worked for the UN Committee on Apartheid and the UN
Commission on Namibia.
In addition, Gervasi was a journalist, contributing to a wide range of publications, from
the New York Amsterdam News to Le Monde Diplomatique . He was a frequent
commentator on the listener-supported Pacifica radio station WBAI in New York. In 1976, Gervasi
broke the story of how the U.S. government was secretly arming the apartheid regime in South
Africa.
In the late 1980s, Gervasi began to focus on the Cold War and what he called the "full court
press," a basketball term for a highly aggressive "all in" strategy. In an article published in
the Covert Action Information Bulletin in early 1991[iii], when the breakup of the
USSR was imminent, Gervasi showed how the Reagan administration's strategy of economic
isolation, a gargantuan arms buildup with the threat of a nuclear attack, overt funding of
internal dissent, and CIA-directed sabotage had been decisive in bringing down the USSR.
Gervasi backed up his analysis with careful scholarship and documentation.
Gervasi was widely respected as a leading independent figure in the left, but his views were
contrary to the fashionable dogma that attributed the USSR's collapse almost exclusively to
such things as failures of leadership, centralization of the economy, the black market,
Chernobyl, or independence movements, and not to external hostility. These are the subjects
which he addressed in the following lecture given to a small audience in January 1992. The
lecture can still be found on internet video sites, but the thesis of this lecture still
remains marginal and obscure two decades later, even though it is highly pertinent to the Cold
War replay that is underway in the second decade of the 21st century -- one in which Russia
stands accused of turning the tables and doing a comparatively very tame version of the
propaganda war waged on the USSR in the 1980s.
After 1992, Gervasi focused his attention on the breakup of Yugoslavia, which he discovered
was a replay of the strategy used to break up the Soviet Union. He became active in exposing
the role of external powers, particularly the U.S. and German governments, in fomenting the
civil war in the Balkans. His view that the war in Bosnia was sparked by the aggressive
machinations these nations, and not age-old ethnic rivalries, alienated Gervasi from much of
the liberal and progressive movement. Journals to which he had once regularly contributed would
no longer print his articles. He had great difficulty finding a publisher for his book on the
Balkans, but some of his research on this topic can be found in the article "Why Is NATO In
Yugoslavia?"[iv] published by Global Research in 2001.[v]
Dennis Riches, November 2017
***
VIDEO Although the United States played a crucial role in WWII, it was slow to get involved
and it let the Soviet Union do much of the heavy lifting and suffer the heaviest losses. The
United States had a lot of help in achieving the victory Mr. Gore claims for America, and we
could assume he knows this, so the way he chose to describe historical events is telling.
Perhaps acknowledging the reality would have detracted from his second point about "bringing
down communism." Everyone knows that what he is referring to so proudly is the destabilization
and destruction of the USSR, the Warsaw bloc nations, and Yugoslavia, not the abstract notion
of communism. He is referring to a "victory" which precipitated civil wars and a disastrous
collapse of the economy and social welfare systems in these countries, one that killed and
impoverished millions. In China, Cuba and the DPRK, contrary to what he stated, these nations'
versions of socialism haven't been brought down at all. [1992]
Explicitly describing the "bringing down of communism" as America's deliberate actions to
dismantle the USSR might run the risk of reminding the audience about the illegality of
interfering in the internal affairs of sovereign nations, and it might have reminded people of
what a betrayal this was of America's WWII ally and partner in the détente of the 1970s.
The inconvenient truth is that the USSR was the WWII ally that played a crucial role in the
victory that Mr. Gore claimed solely for America.
Nonetheless, the comment about "bringing down communism" is refreshingly, and maybe
accidentally, very honest. Most descriptions of the Soviet collapse, even those done by
historians specializing in this field, pay little attention to American efforts to undermine
the Soviet Union in the 1970s and 1980s. The political class always denied that America had a
plan to dismantle the USSR, and denied having any significant influence on events which they
claim arose from domestic causes. If America's influence is addressed at all, it is considered
as a matter of speculation, a mystery hardly worth thinking about when one can more easily look
at the dramatic events that occurred on the surface within the Soviet Union in the last decade
of its existence. The following transcript of the lecture by Sean Gervasi, delivered in 1992,
shortly after the collapse, is unique and valuable for what it reveals about the significant,
and perhaps decisive, American role in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
In his conclusion, Mr. Gervasi came to this judgment:
The Soviet Union today, in the absence of this extraordinarily crafty, well-thought-out,
extremely costly strategy deployed by the Reagan administration, would be a society struggling
through great difficulties. It would still be a socialist society, at least of the kind that it
was. It would be far from perfect, but it would still be there, and I think, therefore, that
Western intervention made a crucial difference in this situation."
The journey to how he came to this conclusion is well worth the reader's time.
A final comment about Mr. Gore's remarks: He is oblivious to the inconvenient solution that
has been staring him in the face all these years: that the necessary reduction of carbon
emissions will require severe constraints on capitalism, a thesis developed by Jason W. Moore
in Capitalism in the Web of Life .[ii] Mr. Gore should know that a radical solution is
needed. In his recent sequel to An Inconvenient Truth he complains about the undue
influence of "money in politics" that has gotten so much worse over the last ten years, but
that's as deep as the class analysis and ideological exploration can go in America. He evinces
no awareness of the historical figures who developed answers to the problem of unaccountable
private control of a nation's government, resources and productive capacities. Gore is still
proud of having actively worked against a revolution in human affairs that aimed to curtail the
savage capitalism that led to the present ecological catastrophe.
In spite of the flaws one might see in what the Soviet Union actually became, flaws that
arose to a great extent because it had to fight against external threats throughout its
existence, the goals of the revolution of 1917 are still relevant to the crises of the 21st
century, and this is what makes Sean Gervasi's research so valuable now, after a quarter
century in which America doubled down on its "winning ways" and worsened the crises that were
evident long ago in 1992.
About Sean Gervasi
Sean Gervasi (1933-1996) spent the latter part of his career exposing the role of the
United States and Western powers in the breakup of the USSR and Yugoslavia. He was working on a
book,Balkan Roulette, at the time of his death.
Gervasi was an economist trained at the University of Geneva, Oxford and Cornell. His
political career began when he took a post as an economic adviser in the Kennedy
administration. He resigned in protest after the 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba.
After his resignation, Gervasi was never able to get work again in the United States as an
economist, despite his impressive academic credentials. He became a lecturer at the London
School of Economics after leaving Washington. Notwithstanding his great popularity, the school
refused to renew his contract in 1965.
During the 1970s and 1980s he was an adviser to a number of governments in Africa and the
Middle East, helping them navigate the hostile and predatory world of transnational
corporations and megabanks. He also worked for the UN Committee on Apartheid and the UN
Commission on Namibia.
In addition, Gervasi was a journalist, contributing to a wide range of publications, from
the New York Amsterdam News to Le Monde Diplomatique . He was a frequent
commentator on the listener-supported Pacifica radio station WBAI in New York. In 1976, Gervasi
broke the story of how the U.S. government was secretly arming the apartheid regime in South
Africa.
In the late 1980s, Gervasi began to focus on the Cold War and what he called the "full court
press," a basketball term for a highly aggressive "all in" strategy. In an article published in
the Covert Action Information Bulletin in early 1991[iii], when the breakup of the
USSR was imminent, Gervasi showed how the Reagan administration's strategy of economic
isolation, a gargantuan arms buildup with the threat of a nuclear attack, overt funding of
internal dissent, and CIA-directed sabotage had been decisive in bringing down the USSR.
Gervasi backed up his analysis with careful scholarship and documentation.
Gervasi was widely respected as a leading independent figure in the left, but his views were
contrary to the fashionable dogma that attributed the USSR's collapse almost exclusively to
such things as failures of leadership, centralization of the economy, the black market,
Chernobyl, or independence movements, and not to external hostility. These are the subjects
which he addressed in the following lecture given to a small audience in January 1992. The
lecture can still be found on internet video sites, but the thesis of this lecture still
remains marginal and obscure two decades later, even though it is highly pertinent to the Cold
War replay that is underway in the second decade of the 21st century -- one in which Russia
stands accused of turning the tables and doing a comparatively very tame version of the
propaganda war waged on the USSR in the 1980s.
After 1992, Gervasi focused his attention on the breakup of Yugoslavia, which he discovered
was a replay of the strategy used to break up the Soviet Union. He became active in exposing
the role of external powers, particularly the U.S. and German governments, in fomenting the
civil war in the Balkans. His view that the war in Bosnia was sparked by the aggressive
machinations these nations, and not age-old ethnic rivalries, alienated Gervasi from much of
the liberal and progressive movement. Journals to which he had once regularly contributed would
no longer print his articles. He had great difficulty finding a publisher for his book on the
Balkans, but some of his research on this topic can be found in the article "Why Is NATO In
Yugoslavia?"[iv] published by Global Research in 2001.[v]
This is a simply a brilliant article. Probably the best written on the subject so far. Kudos to Max Blumenthal
Thinks tanks are really ideological tanks -- formidable weapon in propaganda wars that crush everything on its way. And taken
together far right think tanks financed by defense sector or intelligence agencies are really a shadow far right political party with
its own neocon agenda. Actually subverting the will of American people (who elected Trump) for more peaceful relations (aka detente)
with Russia in favor of interest of weapon manufactures and the army of "national security parasites".
At a time when the ruling elite, across virtually the entire western world, is losing it; it being, political legitimacy and
the breakdown of any semblance of a social contract between the ruled and the rulers those think tanks decides to create a fake
narrative and blame Russians. Is not this a classic variant of projection ?
The slow strangulation of the US MSM means the crisis of confidence. A strong and confident ruling class welcomes criticism and
is ready to brush it all off with a smile and a shrug. When they start running scared and pretending there is no dissent or
opposition, well, this is a sign of of degradation of the ruling elite. They are losing the battle of ideas and the battle of
solutions to social problems. All that really stands between them and a social revolution is a thin veneer of 'authority' and
status, as well as intelligence agencies spying on everybody.
Now all those well paid ( and sometimes even talented) war propagandist intend to substitute the real crisis of neoliberalism in
the USA demonstrated during the recent Presidential Elections for the artificial problem of Russian meddling. And they are succeeding
in this unfair and evil substitution. The also manage to "poison the well" -- relation between two nations were now at the
level probably lower then during Cold War (when many Russians were sympathetic to the USA). I think 70% of Democratic voters now
are convinced the Russia was meddling in the USA election and about 30% of Republican voters also think so. For the creators of
'artificial reality" such numbers signify big success. A very big success to be exact.
Notable quotes:
"... In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling, appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber. Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos ..."
"... The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of media ..."
"... A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his employers at FPRI hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe." ..."
"... Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits, including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint Terror Task Force. ..."
"... Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs. ..."
"... Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease. ..."
"... In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, " The Good and The Bad of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its human rights abuses , sectarianism and off-and-on alliances with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as "an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending." ..."
"... Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later, urging the U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms, should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression," he wrote. In another paper, Watts asked , "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran. ..."
"... Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. ..."
"... Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S. airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news. ..."
"... Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including Politico . Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen echoed Watts' false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent, reproduced Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them. ..."
"... The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi. The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email by Blumenthal. ..."
"... The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran scrubbed his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar, a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents. ..."
"... In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation. With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national platform to highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several months fighting to correct the record. ..."
"... When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he offered Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran once again as a foreign agent. ..."
"... Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts made before the Senate was also a whopping lie. ..."
"... The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a cable news star, with invites from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits. ..."
"... Dr. Strangelove ..."
"... It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations. ..."
Nearly a year after the presidential election, the scandal over accusations of Russian political interference in the 2016 election
has gone beyond Donald Trump and reached into the nebulous world of online media. On November 1, Congress held hearings on "Extremist
Content and Russian Disinformation Online." The proceedings saw executives from Facebook, Twitter and Youtube subjected to tongue-lashings
from lawmakers like Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley, who howled about Russian online trolls "spread[ing] stories about abuse of black
Americans by law enforcement."
In perhaps the most chilling moment of the hearings, and the most overlooked, Clint Watts, a former U.S. Army officer who
had branded himself an expert on Russian meddling,
appeared before a nearly empty Senate chamber.
Watts conjured up a stark landscape of American carnage, with shadowy Russian operatives stage managing the chaos.
"Civil wars don't start with gunshots, they start with words," he proclaimed. "America's war with itself has already begun. We
all must act now on the social media battlefield to quell information rebellions that can quickly lead to violent confrontations
and easily transform us into the Divided States of America."
Next, Watts suggested a government-imposed campaign of media censorship: "Stopping the false information artillery barrage landing
on social media users comes only when those outlets distributing bogus stories are silenced: silence the guns and the barrage will
end."
The censorious overtone of Watts' testimony was unmistakable. He demanded that government news inquisitors drive dissident media
off the internet and warned that Americans would spear one another with bayonets if they failed to act. And not one member of Congress
rose to object. In fact, many echoed his call for media suppression in the House and Senate hearings, with Democrats like Sen. Dianne
Feinstein and
Rep. Jackie Speier agreeing the most vehemently. The spectacle perfectly illustrated the madness of Russiagate, with liberal
lawmakers springboarding off the fear of Russian meddling to demand that Americans be forbidden from consuming the wrong kinds of
media -- including content that amplified the message of progressive causes like Black Lives Matter.
Details of exactly what transpired vis a vis Russia and the U.S. in social media in 2016 are still emerging. This year, the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence published a declassified version of the intelligence community's report on "Assessing
Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections," written by CIA, FBI and NSA, with its central conclusion that Russian
efforts to influence the 2016 presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow's longstanding desire to undermine
the U.S.-led liberal democratic order."
To be sure, there is ample evidence that Russian-linked trolls have attempted to exploit wedge issues on social media platforms.
But the impact of these schemes on real-world events appears to have been exaggerated. According to
Facebook's data
, 56 percent of Russian-linked ads appeared after the 2016 presidential election, and another 25 percent "were never shown to
anyone." The ads were said to have "reached" over 100 million people, but that assumes that Facebook users did not scroll through
or otherwise ignore them, as they do with most ads. Content emanating from "Russia-linked" sources on YouTube, meanwhile, managed
to rack up hit totals in the hundreds , not
exactly a viral smash.
Facebook posts traced to the infamous Internet Research Agency troll factory in Russia amounted to only 0.0004 percent of total
content that appeared on the social network. (Some of these posts
targeted "animal
lovers with memes of adorable puppies," while another hawked an LGBT-themed "
Buff Bernie coloring book for Berniacs.") According
to its " deliberately
broad" review , Twitter found that only 0.74 percent of its election-related tweets were "Russian-linked." Google, for its part,
documented a grand total of $4,700 of "Russian-linked
ad spending" during the 2016 election cycle. While some have argued that the Russian-linked ads were micro-targeted, and could have
shifted key electoral voting blocs, these ads appeared in a media climate awash in a multi-billion dollar deluge of political ad
spending from both established parties and dark money super PACs.
However, a blitz of feverish corporate media coverage and tension-filled congressional hearings has convinced a whopping
82 percent of Democrats
that "Russian-backed" social media content played a central role in swinging the 2016 election. Russian meddling has even earned
comparisons by lawmakers to Pearl Harbor, to "acts of war," and by Hillary Clinton to the
attacks of 9/11
. And in an inadvertent way, these overblown comparisons were apt.
As during the aftermath of 9/11, the fallout from Russiagate has spawned a multimillion-dollar industry of pundits and self-styled
experts eager to exploit the frenetic atmosphere for publicity and profits. Many of these figures have emerged out of the swamp that
flowed from the war on terror and are gravitating toward the growing Russia fearmongering industrial complex in search of new opportunities.
Few of these characters have become as prominent as Clint Watts.
So who is Watts, and how did he emerge seemingly from nowhere to become the star congressional witness on Russian meddling?
Dubious Expertise, Impressive Salesmanship
A former U.S. Army officer who spent years in obscurity at a defense industry funded think tank called the Foreign Policy
Research Institute (FPRI), Watts has become a go-to source for cable news producers and print journalists on the subject of Russian
bots, always available with a comment that reinforces the sense that America is under sustained cyborg attack. This September, his
employers at FPRI
hailed him as "the leading expert on developments related to Russian-backed efforts to not only influence the 2016 presidential
election, but also to inflame racial and cultural divisions within the U.S. and across Europe."
Watts boasts an impressive-looking bio that is replete with fancy sounding fellowships at national security-oriented outfits,
including George Washington University's Center Cyber and Homeland Security. His bio also indicates that he served on an FBI Joint
Terror Task Force.
Though Watts is best known for his punditry on Russian interference, it's fair to say he is as much an expert on Russian affairs
as Harvey Weinstein is a trusted voice on feminism. Indeed, Watts appears to speak no Russian, has no record of reporting or scholarship
from inside Russia, and has produced little to no work of any discernible academic value on Russian affairs.
Whether or not he has the substance to support his claims of expertise, Watts has proven a talented salesman, catering to
popular fears about Russian interference while he plies credulous lawmakers with ease.
Before Congress, a String of Deceptions
Back on March 30, as the narrative of Russian meddling gathered momentum, Watts made his first appearance before the Senate Select
Intelligence Committee.
Seated at the front of a hearing room packed with reporters, Watts introduced Congress to concepts of Russian meddling that were
novel at the time, but which have become part of Beltway newspeak. His testimony turned out to be a signal moment in Russiagate,
helping transition the narrative of the scandal from Russia-Trump collusion to the wider issue of online influence.
In the widely publicized testimony, Watts explained to the panel of senators that he first noticed the pernicious presence
of Russian social media bots after he co-authored an article in 2014 in Foreign Affairs titled, "
The Good and The Bad
of Ahrar al Sham ." The article urged the US to arm a group of Syrian Salafi insurgents known for its
human rights abuses , sectarianism and
off-and-on alliances
with Al Qaeda. Watts and his co-authors insisted that Ahrar al-Sham was the best proxy force for wreaking havoc on the Syrian
government weakening its allies in Iran and Russia. Right below the headline, Watts and his co-authors celebrated Ahrar al-Sham as
"an Al Qaeda linked group worth befriending."
Watts rehashed the same argument at FPRI a year later,
urging the
U.S. government to harness jihadist terror as a weapon against Russia. "The U.S. at a minimum, through covert or semi-covert platforms,
should take advantage and amplify these free alternative [jihadist] narratives to provide Russia some payback for recent years' aggression,"
he wrote. In another paper, Watts
asked
, "Why shouldn't the U.S. redirect some of the jihadi hatred towards those with the dirtiest hands in the Syrian conflict: Russia
and Iran?" Watts did not specify whether the theater of covert warfare should be limited to the Syrian battlefield, or if he sought
to encourage jihadists to carry out terrorist acts inside Russia and Iran.
The premise of these op-eds should have raised serious concerns about Watts and his colleagues, and even questions about their
sanity. They had marketed themselves as national security experts, yet they were lobbying the US to "befriend" the allies of Al Qaeda,
the group that brought down the Twin Towers. (Ahrar al-Sham was founded by Abu Khalid al-Suri, a Madrid bombing suspect who was
named by Spanish
investigators as Osama bin-Laden's courier.) Anyone cynical enough to put such ideas into public circulation should have expected
a backlash. But when the inevitable wave of criticism came, Watts dismissed it all as a Russian bot attack.
Addressing the Senate panel, Watts said that those who took to social media to mock and criticize his Foreign Affairs article
were, in fact, Russian bots. He provided no evidence to support the claim, and
a look at his single tweet promoting the
article shows that he was criticized only once (by @Navsteva, a Twitter user known for defending the Syrian government against regime
change proponents, not an automated bot). Nevertheless, Watts painted the incident as proof that Russia had revived a Cold War information
warfare strategy of "Active Measures," which was supposedly aimed at "crumbl[ing] democracies from the inside out [by] creating political
divisions."
Next, Watts introduced his signature theme, claiming that Russia manipulated civil rights protests to exploit divisions in
American society. Declaring that "pro-Russian" outlets were spreading "chaos in Black Lives Matter protests" by deploying active
measures, Watts did not bother to say what those measures were. In fact, the only piece of proof he offered (in a Daily Beast
transcript of his testimony) was a
single link
to an RT article that factually documented
a squabble between Black Lives Matter protesters and white supremacists -- an incident that had been widely covered by other outlets,
from the
Houston
Chronicle to the
Washington Post . Watts did not explain how this one report by RT sowed any chaos, or whether it had any effect at all on actual
events.
Watts then moved to the main course of his testimony, focusing on how Trump employed Russian "active measures" to attack his
opponents. Watts told the Senate panel that the Russian-backed news outlets RT and Sputnik had produced a false report on the U.S.
airbase in Incirlik, Turkey being "overrun by terrorists." He presented the Russian stories as the anchor for a massive influence
operation that featured swarms of Russian bots across social media. And he claimed that then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort
invoked the incident to deflect from negative media coverage, suggesting that Trump was coordinating strategy with the Kremlin. In
reality, it was Watts who was spreading the fake news.
In the articles
cited
by Watts during his testimony, neither
RT nor
Sputnik made
any reference to "terrorists" taking over Incirlik Airbase. Rather, these outlets compiled tweets by Turkish activists and sourced
their coverage to a report by Hurriyet, one of Turkey's largest mainstream papers. In fact, the incident was reported by virtually
every major Turkish news organization (
here ,
here ,
here and
here ). What's more,
the events appeared to have taken place approximately as RT and Sputnik reported it, with protesters readying to protect the airbase
from a coup while Turkish police sealed the base's entrances and exits. A look at RT's coverage shows the network even downplayed
the severity of the event,
citing a tweet by a U.S.-based national security analysis group stating, "We are not finding any evidence of a coup or takeover."
This stands entirely at odds with Watts' claim that RT exaggerated the incident to spark chaos.
Watts has pushed his bogus narrative of RT and Sputnik's Incirlik coverage in numerous outlets, including
Politico . Democratic
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen
echoed Watts'
false account on the Senate floor while arguing for legislation to force RT out of the U.S. market on political grounds. And Jim
Rutenberg, the New York Times' media correspondent,
reproduced
Watts' distorted account in a major feature on RT and Sputnik's "new theory of war." Almost no one, not one major media organization
or public figure, has bothered to fact check these false claims, and few have questioned the agenda behind them.
Questions emailed to Watts via his employers at FPRI received no reply.
Another Watts Deception, This Time Discredited in Court
During his Senate testimony, Watts introduced a second, and even more distorted claim of Trump employing Russian "active measures"
to attack his political foes. The details of the story are complex and difficult for a passive audience to absorb, which is probably
why Watts has been able to get away with pushing it for so long.
Watts' testimony was the culmination of a mainstream media deception that forced an aspiring reporter out of his job, drove him
to contemplate suicide, and ultimately prompted him to take matters into his own hands by suing his antagonists.
The episode began during a Trump rally at the height of the 2016 presidential campaign, when Trump read out an email purportedly
from longtime Hillary Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal (the father of this writer), hoping to embarrass Clinton over Benghazi.
The text of the email turned out to be part of a column written by the pro-Clinton Newsweek columnist Kurt Eichenwald, not an email
by Blumenthal.
The source of Trump's falsehood appeared to have been a report by Bill Moran, then a reporter for Sputnik, the news service
funded by the Russian government. Having confused Eichenwald's writing for a Blumenthal email, Moran
scrubbed
his erroneous article within 20 minutes. Somehow, Moran's retracted article had found its way onto the Trump campaign's radar,
a not atypical event for a campaign that had relied on material from far-out sites like Infowars to undercut its opponents.
In his column at Newsweek, Eichenwald framed Moran's honest mistake as the leading edge of a secret Russian influence operation.
With help from pro-Clinton elements, Eichenwald's column went viral, earning him slots on CNN and MSNBC, where he howled about the
nefarious Russian-Trump-Wikileaks plot he believed he had just exposed. (Glenn Greenwald was perhaps the only reporter with a national
platform to
highlight Eichenwald's falsifications .) Moran was fired as a result of the fallout, and would have to spend the next several
months fighting to correct the record.
When Moran appealed to Eichenwald for a public clarification, Eichenwald staunchly refused. Instead, he
offered
Moran a job at the New Republic in exchange for his silence and warned him, "If you go public, you'll regret it." (Eichenwald
had no role at the New Republic or any clear ability to influence the magazine's hiring decisions.) Moran refused to cooperate, prompting
Eichenwald to publish a follow-up piece painting himself as the victim of a Russian "active measures" campaign, and to cast Moran
once again as a foreign agent.
When Watts revived Eichenwald's bogus version of events in his Senate testimony, Moran began to spiral into the depths of depression.
He even entertained thoughts of suicide. But he ultimately decided to fight, filing a lawsuit against Newsweek's parent company for
defamation and libel.
Representing himself in court, Moran elicited a settlement from Newsweek that forced the magazine to scrub all of Eichenwald's
articles about him -- a tacit admission that they were false from top to bottom. This meant that the most consequential claim Watts
made before the Senate was also a whopping lie.
The day after Watts' deception-laden appearance, he was nevertheless transformed from an obscure national security into a
cable news star, with
invites
from Morning Joe, Rachel Maddow, Meet the Press, and the liberal comedian Samantha Bee, among many others. His testimony received
coverage from the gamut of major news outlets, and even earned him a fawning profile from CNN. From out of the blue, Watts had become
the star witness of Russiagate, and one of corporate media's favorite pundits.
FPRI, a Pro-War Think Tank Founded by White Supremacist Eugenicists
Before he emerged in the spotlight of Russiagate, Watts languished at the Foreign Policy Research Institute, earning little name
recognition outside the insular world of national security pundits. Based in Philadelphia, the FPRI has been
described by journalist Mark Ames as "one of the looniest (and spookiest) extreme-right think tanks since the early Cold War
days, promoting 'winnable' nuclear war, maximum confrontation with Russia, and attacking anti-colonialism as dangerously unworkable."
Daniel Pipes, the arch-Islamophobe pundit and former FPRI fellow, offered a
similar characterization
of the think tank, albeit from an alternately opposed angle. "Put most baldly, we have always advocated an activist U.S. foreign
policy," Pipes said in a 1991 address to FPRI. He added that the think tank's staff "is not shy about the use of force; were we members
of Congress in January 1991, all of us would not only have voted with President Bush and Operation Desert Storm, we would have led
the charge."
FPRI was co-founded by Robert Strausz-Hupé, a far-right Austrian emigre, with help from conservative corporations and covert funding
from the CIA From the campus of the University of Pennsylvania, Strausz-Hupé gathered a "Philadelphia School" of Cold War hardliners
to develop a strategy for protracted war against the Soviet Union. His brain trust included FPRI co-founder Stefan Possony, an Austrian
fascist who was a board member of the World Anti-Communist League, the international fascist organization
described by journalists
Scott Anderson and Jon Lee Anderson as a network of "those responsible for death squads, apartheid, torture, and the extermination
of European Jewry." True to his fascist roots, Possony co-authored a racialist tract, "
The Geography of Intellect
," that argued that blacks were biologically inferior and that the people of the global South were "genetically unpromising."
Strausz-Hupé seized on Possony's racialist theories to inveigh against anti-colonial movements led by "populations incapable of rational
thought."
While clamoring for a preemptive nuclear strike on the Soviet Union -- and acknowledging that their preferred strategy would cause
mass casualties in American cities -- Strausz-Hupé and his band of hawks developed a monomaniacal obsession with Russian propaganda.
By the time of the Cuban missile crisis, they were stricken with paranoia, arguing on the pages of the New York Times that filmmaker
Stanley Kubrick was a Soviet useful idiot whose film, Dr. Strangelove , advanced "the principal Communist objectives to
drive a wedge between the American people and their military leaders."
Ultimately, Strausz-Hupé's fanaticism cost him an ambassadorship, as Sen. William Fulbright scuttled his appointment to serve
in Morocco on the grounds that his "hard line, no compromise" approach to communism could shatter the delicate balance of diplomacy.
Today, he is remembered fondly
on FPRI's website as "an intellectual and intellectual impresario, administrator, statesman, and visionary." His militaristic
legacy continues thanks to the prolific presence -- and bellicose politics -- of Watts.
The Paranoid Style
This year, FPRI dedicated its annual gala to honoring Watts' success in mainstreaming the narrative of Russian online meddling.
Since I first transcribed a Soundcloud recording of Watts' keynote address, the file has been
mysteriously scrubbed
from the internet. It is unclear what prompted the removal, however, it is easy to understand why Watts would not want his comments
examined by a critical listener. His speech offered a window into a paranoid mindset with a tendency for overblown, unverifiable
claims about Russian influence.
While much of the speech was a rehash of Watts' Senate testimony, he spent an unusual amount of time describing the threat he
believed Russian intelligence agents posed to his own security. "If you speak up too much, you'll get knocked down," Watts said,
claiming that think tank fellows who had been too vocal about Russian meddling had seen their laptops "burned up by malware."
"If someone rises up in prominence, they will suddenly be -- whoof! -- swiped down out of nowhere by some crazy disclosure from
their email," Watts added, referring to unspecified Russian retaliatory measures. As usual, he didn't produce concrete evidence or
offer any examples.
"Anybody remember the reporters that were outed after the election? Or maybe they tossed up a question to the Clinton campaign
and they were gone the next day?" he asked his audience. "That's how it goes."
It was unclear which reporters Watts was referring to, or what incident he could have possibly been alluding to. He offered no
details, only innuendo about the state of siege Kremlin actors had supposedly imposed on him and his freedom-fighting colleagues.
He even predicted he'd be "hacked and cyber attacked when this recording comes out."
According to Watts, Russian "active measures" had singlehandedly augmented Republican opinion in support of the Kremlin. "It is
the greatest success in influence operations in the history of the world," Watts confidently proclaimed. He contrasted Russia's success
with his own failures as an American agent of influence working for the U.S. military, a saga in his career that remains largely
unexamined.
Domestic Agent of Influence
"I worked in influence operations in counter-terrorism for 15 years," Watts boasted to his audience at FPRI. "We didn't break
one or two percent [increase in the approval rating of US foreign policy] in fifteen years and we spent billions a year in tax dollars
doing it. I was paid off of those programs. We had almost no success throughout the Middle East."
By Watts' own admission, he had been part of a secret propaganda campaign aimed at manipulating the opinions of Middle Easterners
in favor of the hostile American military operating in their midst. And he failed massively, wasting "billions a year in tax dollars."
Given his penchant for deception, this may have been yet another tall tale aimed at burnishing his image as an internet era James
Bond. But if the story was even partially true, Watts had inadvertently exposed a severe scandal that, in a fairer world, might have
triggered congressional hearings.
Whatever took place, it appears that Watts and his Cold Warrior colleagues are now waging another expensive influence operation,
this time directed against the American public. By deploying deceptions, half-truths and hyperbole with the full consent of Congress
and in collaboration with the mainstream press, they have managed to convince a majority of Americans that Russia is "trying to knock
us down and take us over," as Watts remarked at the FPRI's gala.
In just a matter of months, public consent for an unprecedented array of hostile measures against Russia, from sanctions and
consular raids to arbitrary
crackdowns on Russian-backed news organizations, has been assiduously manufactured.
It was not until this summer, however, that the influence operation Watts helped establish reached critical capacity. He had
approached one of Washington's most respected think tanks, the German Marshall Fund, and secured support for an initiative called
the Alliance for Securing Democracy. The new initiative became responsible for a daily blacklist of subversive, "pro-Russian" media
outlets, targeting them with the backing of a who's who of national security honchos, from Bill Kristol to former CIA director and
ex-Hillary Clinton surrogate Michael Morrell, along with favorable promotion from some of the country's most respected news organizations.
In the next installment of this investigation, we will see how a collection of cranks, counter-terror retreads and online vigilantes
overseen by the German Marshall Fund have waged a search-and-destroy mission against dissident media under the guise of combating
Russian "active measures," and how the mainstream press has enabled their censorious agenda.
Paradoxically it was language question which by-and-large fueled Crimea secession and Donbass
uprising. Now they decide to step on the same rake again.
If Ukraine strive to be like Canada and the part of EU why do not adopt English as an
official language, to defuse the tensions relegating Ukrainian and Russian to the role of
regional languages (which both of them now actually are). That will instantly diminish the
influence of Russia and thus fulfill the main goal of Western Ukrainian nationalists who are in
power after Maydan (at least partially). English is a great, cultural and scientifically dominant
language now and countries like Canada enjoy full benefits of this situation. Because cultural
and political influence of Russia is what Ukrainian nationalists are most afraid of. English is
politically acceptable to them. That also will save money of textbooks and like, especially
university level textbooks.
They now actually gave a powerful tool for Russia to further limit economic ties claiming
discrimination of Russian speaking population. Not that Ukrainian nationalist care much about
Russian reaction.
But Western Ukrainian nationalists have a penchant for making disastrous for the Ukrainian
economy moves to feed their ambitions and stereotypes. Which led to the situation when Ukraine is
just debt slave nation with limited sovereignty and huge problems due to impoverishment of
population and decay of Soviet era infrastructure. Neoliberalism is not a friend of such
countries as Ukraine, despite all population expectations after Maydan. They want to milk
Ukraine, not to help. and they are very skillful in that as Ukraine probably leaned during 90th.
This is what neoliberal " disaster capitalism "
is about. In other words Ukraine which previously somehow managed to balance between West and
East milking both, moved itself in the zugzwang position.
As for adoption of Ukrainian (which is a beautiful language, BTW), think what would happen if
Canadian French nationalists managed to force French upon the county as official language while
bordering with the USA (actually like in Ukraine where in western part of the country there are
few people who do not speak Russian, there are few people in Canada who neither speak nor
understand English)
It is critical now that the population can speak English because the markets for Ukraine now
are in the West. Ukraine by and large lost Russian market. Probably for a long time.
Notable quotes:
"... "The less favorable treatment of these (non-EU) languages is difficult to justify and therefore raises issues of discrimination," it said. Language is a sensitive issue in Ukraine. ..."
"... After the pro-European Maidan uprising in 2014, the decision to scrap a law allowing some regions to use Russian as an official second language fueled anti-Ukrainian unrest in the east that escalated into a Russia-backed separatist insurgency. ..."
Kiev has submitted the law for review by the Venice Commission, a body which rules on rights
and democracy disputes in Europe and whose decisions member states, which include Ukraine,
commit to respecting.
In an opinion adopted formally on Friday, the commission said it was legitimate for Ukraine
to address inequalities by helping citizens gain fluency in the state language, Ukrainian.
"However, the strong domestic and international criticism drawn especially by the provisions
reducing the scope of education in minority languages seems justified," it said in a
statement.
It said the ambiguous wording of parts of the 'Article 7' legislation raised questions about
how the shift to all-Ukrainian secondary education would be implemented while safeguarding the
rights of ethnic minorities.
As of 2015, Ukraine had 621 schools that taught in Russian, 78 in Romanian, 68 in Hungarian
and five in Polish, according to education ministry data. The commission said a provision in
the new law to allow some subjects to be taught in official EU languages, such as Hungarian,
Romanian and Polish, appeared to discriminate against speakers of Russian, the most widely used
non-state language.
"The less favorable treatment of these (non-EU) languages is difficult to justify and
therefore raises issues of discrimination," it said. Language is a sensitive issue in
Ukraine.
After the pro-European Maidan uprising in 2014, the decision to scrap a law allowing some
regions to use Russian as an official second language fueled anti-Ukrainian unrest in the east
that escalated into a Russia-backed separatist insurgency.
Poor Ukraine. It is now just a prey of major powers and other neoliberal predators, including transnational
corporations. Each wants a fat piece. Looks after Poroshenko "revolt" against anti-corruption bureau prompted Washington
to "switch horses during crossing the river" (which is very Tramp-style decision). A new favorite most probably is Timoshenko
(about whom they have a lot of compromising material, so she will always be on the hook). When a neoliberals poodle like Aslund tweets "
"President Poroshenko appears to have abandoned the fight against corruption, any ambition for
economic growth, EU or IMF funding," you can be sure that Washington priorities now definitely
changed. Such a brave man telling people the hard truth ;-) This guy would praise
Poroshenko to skies, if that wouldn't be case. .. The message from Bershidsky handlers who ordered this "hit piece" is
that same -- "The moor has done his duty, moor has
to go". Such a hatchet job in MSM like Bloomberg, NYT or Wapo is usually done only under direct order from powers that be.
Re-appearance of Saakashvili with this farce of illegal crossing of the border (imagine this !) on the political scene is
probably also orchestrated from Washington.
Formally Poroshenko is accused that he is trying to undermine the work of anti-corruption bureau controlled by FBI. The real situation
might be that gradually Poroshenko probably understood that blind following of
Washington political line is the road to nowhere and leads to further impoverishing of
population. Also "independent" status of anti-corruption buro to a certain extent makes Ukrain a colony with colonial
administration. Specifically it give FBI the possibility to persecute any Ukrainian politician. On the other hand
Poroshenko also have far right nationalists sitting behind his back and
they are probably not too exited by neoliberal reforms Poroshenko pursue. Standard of
living in Ukraine dropped to the level when it corresponds to standard of living of some Central African countries -- less
then $2 a day. It became a "sex shop" for Western Europeans, especially French. Most of
prostitutes in Western Europe are Ukrainian woman. In other words both Ukraine and Poroshenko are now is zugzwang situation.
So in desperation Poroshenko probably started making some "unapproved" moves interfering with work of FBI controlled
anti-corruption buro (which actually did not jail a single US citizen for corruption). Probably following Polish example of '
disobedience " to neoliberal dictate. A reaction followed.
Charges of corruption is such a classic tool of "color revolutions" that now it can be viewed
as just a symbol of renewed attempt to interfere into Ukraine political life. A Washington Obcom dictate, if you wish.
Actually corruption a little bit complicates looting of the country which if done by financial mechanisms as it means that in
contracts Western companies have some disadvantage and need a local "roof" which negatively affects the profits.
Notable quotes:
"... He and his first prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, knew what the U.S. State Department and Vice President Joe Biden, who acted as the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine, wanted to hear. ..."
President Petro Poroshenko is sacrificing Westernization to a personal political agenda.
It's become increasingly clear that Obama-era U.S. politicians backed the wrong people in
Ukraine. President Petro Poroshenko's moves to consolidate his power now include sidelining the
anti-corruption institutions he was forced to set up by Ukraine's Western allies.
Poroshenko, who had briefly served as Ukraine's foreign minister, looked worldlier than his
predecessor, the deposed Viktor Yanukovych, and spoke passable English. He and his first
prime minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, knew what the U.S. State Department and Vice President Joe
Biden, who acted as the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine, wanted to hear. So,
as Ukraine emerged from the revolutionary chaos of January and February 2014, the U.S., and
with it the EU, backed Poroshenko and Yatsenyuk as Ukraine's next leaders. Armed with this
support, not least with promises of major technical aid and International Monetary Fund loans,
they won elections, posing as Westernizers who would lead Ukraine into Europe. But their
agendas turned out to be more self-serving.
... ... ...
After a failed attempt to kick Saakashvili, an anti-corruption firebrand, out of Ukraine for
allegedly obtaining its citizenship under false pretences, Poroshenko's law enforcement
apparatus has harassed and deported the Georgian-born politician's allies. Finance Minister
Oleksandr Danilyuk, who helped Saakashvili set up a think tank in Kiev -- which is now under
investigation for suspected financial violations -- has accused law-enforcement agencies of
"putting pressure on business, on those who want to change the country." Danilyuk himself is
being investigated for tax evasion.
... ... ...
"President Poroshenko appears to have abandoned the fight against corruption, any ambition
for economic growth, EU or IMF funding," economist Anders Aslund, who has long been optimistic
about Ukrainian reforms, tweeted recently.
... ... ...
Poroshenko, however, would have gotten nowhere -- and wouldn't be defending Ukraine's
opaque, corrupt, backward political system today -- without Western support. No amount of
friendly pressure is going to change him. If Ukrainians shake up their apathy to do to him what
they did to Yanukovych -- or when he comes up for reelection in 2019 -- this mistake shouldn't
be repeated. It's not easy to find younger, more principled, genuinely European-oriented
politicians in Ukraine, but they exist. Otherwise, Western politicians and analysts will have
to keep acting shocked that another representative of the old elite is suddenly looking a lot
like Yanukovych.
In no way Mr. Saakashvili is an independent political player, he is just a pawn of some complex gambit against Poroshenko. Who
is behind him? Timoshenko, the far right nationalists (that would be very strange), the USA is completely unclear. But in no way
he of his own can command loyalty of the crowd in Kiev, this crowd most probably consist of Timoshenko
supporters, who were communicated the the "wish" of their leader that "we need to support Mr. Saakashvili, he is one of us".
In any case those events are a huge surprise to most observers, who assumes that the USA firmly backs Poroshenko.
Notable quotes:
"... "With a Ukrainian flag draped across his shoulders and a pair of handcuffs still attached to one of his wrists, Mr. Saakashvili then led hundreds of supporters in a march across Kiev toward Parliament. Speaking through a bullhorn he called for 'peaceful protests' to remove Mr. Poroshenko from office, just as protests had toppled the former President, Victor F. Yanukovych, in February 2014." ..."
"... And there was broad support for bringing Georgia into NATO. This would have given Saakashvili an ability to ignite a confrontation with Russia, which could have forced U.S. intervention.Consider Ukraine. Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the overthrow of the elected pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now." Following that coup, U.S. elites were urging us to confront Putin in Crimea, bring Ukraine, as well as Georgia, into NATO, and send Kiev the lethal weapons needed to defeat Russian-backed rebels in the East. This could have led straight to a Ukraine-Russia war, precipitated by our sending of U.S. arms. ..."
"... Alliances, after all, are the transmission belts of war. ..."
"... These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny usually have deep state connections. ..."
"... Neocons are a scourge on the planet. Somehow they always manage to stay in control of things even when they make so many war mongering blunders. They must have supernatural help, but not the good kind. ..."
"... "These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny ' Saakashvili as a latter day Che Guevara? Ha, ha, ha. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." K. Marx. ..."
"... Expanding NATO was a damn fool thing to do. The Romans couldn't hang onto Mesopotamia; overextension is real. Let's hope we get a leader who will retrench. Oh, and bring back Giraldi. Yes, Veruschka, there is an Israel Lobby. ..."
Even interventionists are regretting some of the wars into
which they helped plunge the United States in this century. Among those wars are Afghanistan and Iraq, the longest in our history; Libya, which was left
without a stable government; Syria's civil war, a six-year human rights disaster we helped kick
off by arming rebels to overthrow Bashar Assad; and Yemen, where a U.S.-backed Saudi bombing
campaign and starvation blockade is causing a humanitarian catastrophe. Yet, twice this century, the War Party was beaten back when seeking a clash with Putin's
Russia. And the "neo-isolationists" who won those arguments served America well.
What triggered this observation was an item on Page 1 of Wednesday's New York Times that
read in its entirety: "Mikheil Saakashvili, former president of Georgia, led marchers through Kiev after
threatening to jump from a five-story building to evade arrest. Page A4"
Who is Saakashvili? The wunderkind elected in 2004 in Tbilisi after a "Rose Revolution" we
backed during George W. Bush's crusade for global democracy. During the Beijing Olympics in August 2008, Saakashvili sent his army crashing into the tiny
enclave of South Ossetia, which had broken free of Georgia when Georgia broke free of
Russia. In overrunning the enclave, however, Saakashvili's troops killed Russian peacekeepers. Big
mistake. Within 24 hours, Putin's tanks and troops were pouring through Roki Tunnel, running
Saakashvili's army out of South Ossetia, and occupying parts of Georgia itself. As defeat loomed for the neocon hero, U.S. foreign policy elites were alive with
denunciations of "Russian aggression" and calls to send in the 82nd Airborne, bring Georgia
into NATO, and station U.S. forces in the Caucasus.
"We are all Georgians!" thundered John McCain. Not quite. When an outcry arose against getting into a collision with Russia, Bush, reading
the nation right, decided to confine U.S. protests to the nonviolent. A wise call. And Saakashvili? He held power until 2013, and then saw his party defeated, was charged with
corruption, and fled to Ukraine. There, President Boris Poroshenko, beneficiary of the Kiev
coup the U.S. had backed in 2014, put him in charge of Odessa, one of the most corrupt
provinces in a country rife with corruption.
In 2016, an exasperated Saakashvili quit, charged his patron Poroshenko with corruption, and
fled Ukraine. In September, with a band of supporters, he made a forced entry back across the
border.
Here is the Times' Andrew Higgins on his latest antics:
"On Tuesday Saakashvili, onetime darling of the West, took his high-wire political career to
bizarre new heights when he climbed onto the roof of his five-story apartment building in the
center of Kiev... As hundreds of supporters gathered below, he shouted insults at Ukraine's leaders and
threatened to jump if security agents tried to grab him. Dragged from the roof after denouncing Mr. Poroshenko as a traitor and a thief, the former
Georgian leader was detained but then freed by his supporters, who blocked a security service
van before it could take Mr. Saakashvili to a Kiev detention center and allowed him to
escape.
"With a Ukrainian flag draped across his shoulders and a pair of handcuffs still
attached to one of his wrists, Mr. Saakashvili then led hundreds of supporters in a march
across Kiev toward Parliament. Speaking through a bullhorn he called for 'peaceful protests' to
remove Mr. Poroshenko from office, just as protests had toppled the former President, Victor F.
Yanukovych, in February 2014."
This reads like a script for a Peter Sellers movie in the '60s. Yet this clown was president
of Georgia, for whose cause in South Ossetia some in our foreign policy elite thought we should
go to the brink of war with Russia.
And there was broad support for bringing Georgia into NATO. This would have given
Saakashvili an ability to ignite a confrontation with Russia, which could have forced U.S.
intervention.Consider Ukraine. Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the
overthrow of the elected pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now." Following
that coup, U.S. elites were urging us to confront Putin in Crimea, bring Ukraine, as well as
Georgia, into NATO, and send Kiev the lethal weapons needed to defeat Russian-backed rebels in
the East. This could have led straight to a Ukraine-Russia war, precipitated by our sending of
U.S. arms.
Do we really want to cede to folks of the temperament of Mikhail Saakashvili an ability to
instigate a war with a nuclear-armed Russia, which every Cold War president was resolved to
avoid, even if it meant accepting Moscow's hegemony in Eastern Europe all the way to the
Elbe?
Watching Saakashvili losing it in the streets of Kiev like some blitzed college student
should cause us to reassess the stability of all these allies to whom we have ceded a capacity
to drag us into war. Alliances, after all, are the transmission belts of war.
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of a new book, Nixon's White House Wars: The
Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.
I'd bet that Saak is a CIA asset who is probably moon-lighting for other intelligence
services as well. Israel? Russia? Iran? Turkey? Who knows? These all purpose internationalist
revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like the proverbial bad penny usually have
deep state connections.
Neocons are a scourge on the planet. Somehow they always manage to stay in control of things
even when they make so many war mongering blunders. They must have supernatural help, but not
the good kind.
Maybe its time conservatives acknowledged that the Rosenbergs did a good thing by helping the
Soviet Union get the A-bomb. It's obvious that the only thing stopping our bloodthirsty, mad
dog foreign policy establishment from attacking Russia or North Korea is their nukes, just as
the threat of Soviet nukes is what kept U.S. presidents from dropping ours on North Korea and
North Vietnam. If the so-called "foreign policy realists" – whose forebears have
copious amounts of Latin American, African and Asian blood on their hands – ever get
back into Foggy Bottom and the West Wing, maybe they could prevail on the President to issue
a posthumous pardon for the Rosenbergs and all of the other American Communists who greased
the wheels for the Red Bomb.
Mr Buchanan's standard line. Vladimir Putin must be allowed to inflict a humiliating defeat
on the evil United States. What Mr Buchanan sidesteps is the inherent contradiction in his
argument. As anyone who has read his articles over the years will know, his enemy is the EU,
which he wants to destroy at all costs, probably because he sees it as a challenge to US
global hegemony. In the original neocon scam, Putin was a "useful idiot" to serve as a
battering ram to break up the EU and a bogeyman to frighten the resulting plethora of weak
statelets to submit to US hegemony in return for such protection as the US vouchsafed to give
them. In return for his services, the US would give Putin such part of the European cake as
it vouchsafed to give him. Putin, at that point, would, of course, have been an American
stooge, logical in the context of US global hegemony. However, by grabbing Ukrainian
territory by military force, Putin challenged US global hegemony and as long as he is allowed
to occupy Ukrainian territory, US global hegemony is worthless. That, in its turn, will
probably provoke a Soviet-style implosion of the whole American house of cards. Thus, in
order to maintain US global hegemony by destroying the EU, Mr Buchanan has to destroy US
global hegemony by backing Putin!
"These all purpose internationalist revolutionaries who keep turning up here and there like
the proverbial bad penny '
Saakashvili as a latter day Che Guevara? Ha, ha, ha. "History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce." K. Marx.
Expanding NATO was a damn fool thing to do. The Romans couldn't hang onto Mesopotamia;
overextension is real. Let's hope we get a leader who will retrench.
Oh, and bring back Giraldi. Yes, Veruschka, there is an Israel Lobby.
I'm having trouble understanding why I should care about the Ukraine, or NATO, or this
Saakashvili person. Someone please tell me how they affect me personally.
That Saakashvili has always been a few bricks short of a full load is not in dispute but to
argue that this means the US and Europe should back away from making it clear to Putin that
parts of Eastern Europe are not going to be ceded to Russian domination again makes no sense.
Like Premier Xi of China who in now trying to argue that Chinese domination of Asia is
justified by some prior period in Chinese history, Putin would like us to believe that
Russian domination of large parts of Eastern Europe is perfectly natural because of past
Russian history or even on religious grounds. We forget at our peril that Putin was a former
communist and atheist and a part of an organization that not only believed the West was
decadent and deserved to be defeated but also worked to suppress and eradicate religion.
Putin now cravenly uses religiously based arguments to justify Russian actions and would like
us to believe he is defending Christianity from Western decadence. We might as well put the
proverbial fox in charge of the hen house if we allow ourselves to accept that Putin really
has any interest in defending Christianity or doesn't lust for the restoration of Russian
domination of Eastern Europe.
Russia may no longer be the "Evil Empire" that it was called when it was the USSR but it
would be pure folly to not push back against Putin's dreams of Russian hegemony any more than
it would make sense for the US to assume that Russian and China are not going to push back
against what they perceive as US hegemony. Conversely we need to guard against assuming that
just because a country declares itself to be a democracy that the actions of any new
democratic leaders automatically deserves our support and protection. In fairness to Georgia,
the Soviets weren't known for allowing deep pools of democracy supporting leaders to develop
which unfortunately means that people like Saakashvili will float to the top.
"Three years ago, McCain was declaring, in support of the overthrow of the elected
pro-Russian government in Kiev, "We are all Ukrainians now."
The neocons probably won't be saying "We're all Kazkhstans now" in a few years when the
long-serving president of Kazakhstan dies without a clear successor and Russia moves in to
the north and east of Kazakhstan to crush the ensuing acts of Islamic terrorism and
incidentally help protect China's crucial border state of Xinjiang from ISIS, giving Russia
the balance of power in Central Asia and thus restoring it to superpower status.
Contemplating the behavior of this gentleman really makes one think that in some cases
college student is a state of mind. On the other hand, if wanted to threaten someone with his
suicide, he could have swallowed a non-lethal quantity of belladonna berries instead of a
dull standing on a roof. Politically the outcome would have likely been the same, but knowing
the mental impact of tropane alkaloids, with a hell lot of fun along the way.
Setting this walking curiosity aside for a moment there, I also join those wishing the
return of Mr. Giraldi.
"... Fortunately, just in the nick of time, the ruling classes and their media mouthpieces rolled out the Russian Propaganda story. The Washington Post (whose owner's multimillion dollar deal with the CIA, of course, has absolutely no effect on the quality of its professional journalism) led the charge with this McCarthyite smear job , legitimizing the baseless allegations of some random website and a think tank staffed by charlatans like this "Russia expert," who appears not to speak a word of Russian or have any other "Russia expert" credentials, but is available both for television and Senate Intelligence Committee appearances. Numerous similar smear pieces followed. Liberals breathed a big sigh of relief that Hitler business had been getting kind of scary. How long can you go, after all, with Hitler stumbling around the White House before somebody has to go in there and shoot him? ..."
"... In any event, by January, the media were playing down the Hitler stuff and going balls-out on the "Russiagate" story. According to The Washington Post (which, let's remember, is a serious newspaper, as opposed to a propaganda organ of the so-called US "Intelligence Community"), not only had the Russians "hacked" the election, but they had hacked the Vermont power grid ! Editorialists at The New York Times were declaring that Trump " had been appointed by Putin ," and that the USA was now "at war" with Russia. This was also around the time when liberals first learned of the Trump-Russia Dossier , which detailed how Putin was blackmailing Trump with a video the FSB had shot of Trump and a bunch of Russian hookers peeing on a bed in a Moscow hotel in which Obama had allegedly slept. ..."
"... This nonsense was reported completely straight-faced, and thus liberals were forced to take it seriously. Imagine the cognitive dissonance they suffered. It was like that scene in 1984 when the Party abruptly switches enemies, and the war with Eurasia becomes the war with Eastasia. Suddenly, Trump wasn't Hitler anymore. Now he was a Russian sleeper agent who Putin had been blackmailing into destroying democracy with this incriminating "golden showers" video. ..."
"... C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing (USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org . ..."
First came the overwhelming shock of Hillary Clinton's loss to Trump, a repulsive, word
salad-babbling buffoon with absolutely no political experience who the media had been
portraying to liberals as the Second Coming of Adolf Hitler. This was a candidate, let's
recall, who jabbered about building a "beautiful wall" to protect us from the hordes of
"Mexican rapists" and other "bad hombres" who were invading America, and who had boasted about
grabbing women "by the pussy" like a prepubescent 6th grade boy. While he had served as a
perfect foil for Clinton, and had provided hours of entertainment in a comic book villain kind
of way, the prospect of a Donald Trump presidency was inconceivable in the minds of liberals.
So, when it happened, it was like the Martians had invaded.
Mass hysteria gripped the nation. There was beaucoup wailing and gnashing of teeth. Liberals
began exhibiting irrational and, in some cases, rather disturbing behaviors. Many degenerated
into dissociative states and just sat there with their phones for hours obsessively reloading
the popular vote count, which Clinton had won, on FiveThirtyEight. Others festooned
themselves with safety pins and went out looking for defenseless minorities who they could
"demonstrate solidarity" with. Owen Jones flew in from London to join his colleague Steven
Thrasher, who was organizing a guerilla force to resist "
the normalization of Trump " and the global race war he was about to launch, which "not all
of us were going to get out of alive."
At that point, the media had been hammering hard on the Trump-is-Hitler narrative for
months, so they had to stick with that for a while. It had only been a few weeks, after all,
since The Wall Street
Journal , The
New York Times , The Washington Post , The Guardian , and numerous other
establishment publications , had explained how Trump was using special fascist code words
like "global elites," "international banks," and "lobbyists" to signal his virulent hatred of
the Jews to the millions of Americans who, according to the media, were secretly Hitler-loving
fascists.
This initial post-election propaganda was understandably somewhat awkward, as the plan had
been to be able to celebrate the "Triumph of Love over the Forces of Hate," and the demise of
the latest Hitlerian bogeyman. But this was the risk the ruling classes took when they chose to
go ahead and Hitlerize Trump, which they wouldn't have done if they'd thought for a moment that
he had a chance of actually winning the election. That's the tricky thing about Hitlerizing
people. You need to be able to kill them, eventually. If you don't, when they turn out not to
be Hitler, your narrative kind of falls apart, and the people you've fear-mongered into a
frenzy of frothing, self-righteous fake-Hitler-hatred end up feeling like a bunch of dupes
who'll believe anything the government tells them. This is why, normally, you only Hitlerize
foreign despots you can kill with impunity. This is Hitlerization 101 stuff, which the ruling
classes ignored in this case, which the left poor liberals terrified that Trump was actually
going to start building Trump-branded death camps and rounding up the Jews.
Fortunately, just in the nick of time, the ruling classes and their media mouthpieces
rolled out the Russian Propaganda story. The Washington Post (whose owner's multimillion
dollar deal with the CIA, of course, has absolutely no effect on the quality of its
professional journalism) led the charge with
this McCarthyite smear job , legitimizing the baseless allegations of some random website
and a think tank staffed by charlatans like
this "Russia expert," who appears not to speak a word of Russian or have any other "Russia
expert" credentials, but is available both for television and Senate Intelligence Committee
appearances. Numerous similar smear pieces
followed. Liberals breathed a big sigh of relief that Hitler business had been getting kind of
scary. How long can you go, after all, with Hitler stumbling around the White House before
somebody has to go in there and shoot him?
In any event, by January, the media were playing down the Hitler stuff and going
balls-out on the "Russiagate" story. According to The Washington Post (which, let's
remember, is a serious newspaper, as opposed to a propaganda organ of the so-called US
"Intelligence Community"), not only had the Russians "hacked" the election, but they had
hacked the Vermont power grid ! Editorialists at The New York Times were declaring
that Trump "
had been appointed by Putin ," and that the USA was now "at war" with Russia. This was also
around the time when liberals first learned of the
Trump-Russia Dossier , which detailed how Putin was blackmailing Trump with a video the FSB
had shot of Trump and a bunch of Russian hookers peeing on a bed in a Moscow hotel in which
Obama had allegedly slept.
This nonsense was reported completely straight-faced, and thus liberals were forced to
take it seriously. Imagine the cognitive dissonance they suffered. It was like that scene in
1984 when the Party abruptly switches enemies, and the war with Eurasia becomes the war
with Eastasia. Suddenly, Trump wasn't Hitler anymore. Now he was a Russian sleeper agent who
Putin had been blackmailing into destroying democracy with this incriminating "golden showers"
video. Putin had presumably been "running" Trump since Trump's visit to Russia in 2013 to
hobnob with "Russia-linked" Russian businessmen and attend the Miss Universe pageant in Moscow.
During the ensuing partying, Trump must have gotten loaded on Diet Coke and gotten carried away
with those Russian hookers. Now, Putin had him by the short hairs and was forcing him to staff
his Manchurian cabinet with corporate CEOs and Goldman Sachs guys, who probably had also been
videotaped by the FSB in Moscow hotels paying hookers to pee on furniture, or performing
whatever other type of seditious, perverted kink they were into.
Before the poor liberals had time to process this, the ruling classes launched "the
Resistance." You remember the Pussyhat
People , don't you? And the global corporate PR campaign which accompanied their historic
"Womens' March" on Washington? Do you remember liberals like Michael Moore shrieking for the feds to arrest
Donald Trump ? Or publications like The New York Times , Salon , and many others, and even State
Satirist Stephen Colbert accusing Trump and anyone who supported him of treason a crime,
let's recall, that is punishable by death? Do you remember folks like William Kristol and Rob "the Meathead"
Reiner demanding that the "deep state" launch a coup against Trump to rescue America from
the Russian infiltrators?
Ironically, the roll-out of this "Russiagate" hysteria was so successful that it peaked too
soon, and prematurely backlashed all over itself. By March, when Trump had not been arrested,
nor otherwise removed from office, liberals, who by that time the corporate media had teased
into an incoherent, throbbing state of anticipation were well, rather disappointed. By April,
they were exhibiting all the hallmark symptoms of clinical psychosis. This mental breakdown was
due to the fact that the media pundits and government spooks who had been telling them that
Trump was Hitler, and then a Russian sleeper agent, were now telling them that he wasn't so
bad , because he'd pointlessly bombed a Syrian airstrip, and dropped a $314 million Massive
Ordnance Air Blast bomb on some alleged "terrorist caves" in Afghanistan.
As if liberals' poor brains weren't rattled enough, the corporate media then switched back
to, first, the Russian Propaganda narrative (which they expanded into a global threat), then,
the Hitler stuff again, but this time Trump wasn't actually Hitler, because Putin was Hitler,
or at least he was fomenting Hitlerism throughout the West with his legions of fascist hacker
bots who were "influencing" unsuspecting consumers with their blitzkrieg of divisive "fake
news" stories. Oh, yeah, and now
Putin had also done Brexit , or Trump and Robert Mercer had, but they were working for
Putin, who had also hacked the
French election that he hadn't hacked , or whatever
this was no time to worry about what had or hadn't actually happened. The peace and prosperity
President Obama had reestablished throughout the West by incessantly bombing the Greater Middle
East and bailing out his pals at the Wall Street banks was being torn asunder by Vladimir
Putin, who at some point had apparently metamorphosized from a ruthless, former KGB autocrat
into a white supremacist megalomaniac.
Right on cue, on the weekend of August 11-12 in Charlottesville, Virginia,
where there had never been any history of racism , a "national gathering" of approximately
five hundred tiki torch-bearing neo-Nazis, Ku Klux Klan types, and other white supremacists,
many of them barking Nazi slogans, marched into the pages of history. Never before have so few
fascists owed so much to the mainstream media, which showered them with overwrought coverage,
triggering a national Nazi panic. Liberals poured into the streets, tearing down Confederate
monuments, and otherwise signaling their total intolerance of the racism they had tolerated
until a few days earlier.
People named after Robert E. Lee , and horses named after
General Lee's horse , went into hiding to until the panic subsided. This was wise, as by
then the so-called anti-fascists were showing up in force at anything resembling a right-wing
rally and stomping the living Hitler out of Nazis, and Trump supporters, and journalists, and
well, anyone they didn't think looked quite right. This totally preemptively self-defensive,
non-violent type of violent behavior, naturally, shocked and horrified liberals, who are
strongly opposed to all forms of violence that aren't carried out by the US military, or the
police, or someone else wearing a uniform. Unsure as to whom they were supposed to condemn, the
Nazis or the Antifa terrorists, they turned for guidance to the corporate ruling classes, who
informed them
it was time to censor the Internet .
This made about as much sense as any of the other nonsense they'd been spoonfed so far, so
liberals decided to get behind it, or at least look the other way while it happened. Facebook,
Google, Amazon, Twitter (and all the other corporations that control the Internet, the media,
Hollywood, the publishing industry, and every other means of representing "reality") surely
have people's best interests at heart. Plus, they're only censoring the Nazis, and the
terrorists, and the Russian "fake news" disseminators, and, OK, a lot of leftist publications, and
award-winning journalists , and anyone else espousing "divisive," anti-American, or
anti-corporate, "extremist" views.
Look, I know what you're probably thinking, but it isn't like liberals don't actually care
about fundamental liberal values like freedom of the press and speech and all that. It's just
that they desperately need the Democrats to take back the House and the Senate next year, so
they can get on with impeaching Trump, and if they have to stand by while the corporations
suppress a little leftist dissent, or, you know, transform the entire Internet into a massive,
mind-numbing echo chamber of neo-McCarthyite corporate conformity well, sacrifices have to be
made.
This can't go on forever, after all. This level of full-blown mass hysteria can only be
sustained for so long. It's all fine and good to be able to whip people up into a frenzied mob,
but at some point you need to have an endgame. The neoliberal ruling classes know this. Their
endgame is actually fairly simple. Their plan is to (a) make an example of Trump to discourage
any future billionaire idiots from screwing with their simulation of democracy, and (b)
demonize anyone deviating from neoliberal ideology as a fascist, racist, or anti-Semite, or
otherwise "abnormal" or "extremist." Their plan is not to incinerate the entire planet
in a war with Russia. We're not on the brink of World War III, despite how many Twitter likes
or Facebook shares it might get me to say that. Yes, eventually, they want to force Russia to
return to the kind of "cooperation" it engaged in during the 1990s, when it was run by an
incorrigible drunkard and the Goldman Sachs boys and their oligarch pals were looting the
country for all it was worth but that has little to do with all this.
No, the corporate ruling classes' endgame here is to reestablish neoliberal "normality," so
we can get back to the War on Terror (or whatever they'll be calling it by then), and put this
neo-nationalist revolt against neoliberalism episode behind us. To do that, they will need
to install some sort of hopey-changey, Obama-like messiah, or at least somebody who can play
the part of POTUS like a normal person and not sit around the Oval Office gobbling McDonald's
and retweeting racist memes by random British fascists.
The way things are going, that might take a while, but rest assured they'll get there
eventually. Now that Robert Mueller has proved that Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin by
obstructing an investigation by Comey into Michael Flynn's lying to the FBI about not colluding
with the Russian ambassador on behalf of Israel at Kushner's behest, the dominoes are surely
about to fall. Once they all have, and Donald Trump's head has been mounted on a spike on the
White House lawn as a warning to any other potential usurpers, all this Russia and Nazi
hysteria that has the poor liberals running around like headless chickens will disappear.
Russia will go back to being Russia. The North American Nazi Menace, deprived of daily media
coverage, will go back to being a fringe phenomenon. Liberals will go back to ignoring politics
(except identity politics, naturally) and obediently serving the global capitalist ruling
elites that are destroying the planet, and the lives of millions of human beings, in order to
increase their profit margins. Sure, there'll be a brief emotional hangover, once the
adrenaline rush wears off and they look back at their tweets and Facebook posts, which in
hindsight might convey the impression that they spent the better part of a year parroting
whatever insane propaganda the corporate media pumped out at them, and otherwise behaving like
Good
Americans but then, that's what the "delete" key is for.
C. J. Hopkins is an award-winning American playwright, novelist and satirist based in
Berlin. His plays are published by Bloomsbury Publishing (UK) and Broadway Play Publishing
(USA). His debut novel, ZONE 23 , is
published by Snoggsworthy, Swaine & Cormorant. He can reached at cjhopkins.com or consentfactory.org .
"The way things are going, that might take a while, but rest assured they'll get there
eventually. Now that Robert Mueller has proved that Trump colluded with Vladimir Putin by
obstructing an investigation by Comey into Michael Flynn's lying to the FBI about not
colluding with the Russian ambassador on behalf of Israel at Kushner's behest, the dominoes
are surely about to fall."
Thanks, now I understand where Judge Napolitano is coming from.
Thank you for your valuable summary. Another part of the Colonel's site that makes SST the place, I think the only place, where
it's all put together.
On corruption in Russia - it seems to be very bad. Not as bad as Southern Europe maybe, but not pretty.
A difficult subject to examine. But I remember a while ago talking to a contractor who'd done work in Saudi. He said that working
over there was a real breath of fresh air. You paid the money over - there seemed to be some sort of informal tariff - and that
was it. You knew where you were.
Different here, he said. It was all back door and getting to know the right people to swap favours with. You could never tell
whether you'd pressed the right buttons or not, not for certain. More work and no cheaper, when you looked at it in the round.
Corruption at the bottom level here is as far as I know non-existent, not for the man in the street. I've never heard of anyone
getting off a motoring offence, for example, by making sure there is money for the policeman tucked into his documents before
he sets off, though there are many places abroad where that's a sensible precaution. And bribing the professor to upgrade your
degree would be unthinkable here, though not in Italy. I'd be very surprised too if there were suitcases full of cash floating
around in more elevated circles. Not for us the breezy free-for-all in Ireland, where a businessman can give a Taoiseach a cheque
for a million on the golf course and it's such an everyday transaction that the Taoiseach can say later that yes, it did happen,
but he'd never really noticed.
\
It doesn't happen here because it doesn't need to happen. There are plenty of legal ways of getting money or favours across
so a suitcase merchant would be regarded, I think, as a blundering amateur. The amateurs - the MP trying to cash in by taking
money for asking questions in the House and such like - get regularly exposed in the press. The people who know what they're about,
never. Nothing to expose. It's all legal.
In my view the fact that we've institutionalised our corruption doesn't entitle us to point the finger. It does seem that there
is a deplorable amount of straight bribery and corruption in Russia. But we're not the pot that can call that kettle black.
Chirac had been for decades a very corrupt politician in France - in the illegal manner that you describe - but was completely
acceptable to the Western Fortress.
The Olympians of the Western Fortress have taken excellent causes such as Human Rights, International Security, Representative
Government, Rule-of-Law, and Good Government and turned them into wedges against their enemies; thus gutting them from all their
moral purport.
None of that is any longer worth getting excited about except International Security as it touches upon continued existence
of Human Life on this planet.
I agree "institutionalised corruption" is what we have a lot of in the West -- it's not illegal, but it sure looks like passing
money to get something from someone in power or transforming public money into private money. I don't see anything like that in
Russia (although there was a great deal of it in the 1990s and the perpetrators have been allowed to keep their loot. As long
as they keep out of politics).
In honesty I still try and get my Head around exacts of recent Police Reforms (Most Recent Forming of National Guard and removal
of Paramilitary - OMON/SOBR-OMSN from MVD along with VV ) especially as I have lived abroad many Years. DPS or GAI of old has
changed over the Years and it still exists as Part of Interior Ministry... I sometimes hang around some Interesting Characters
but seldom do those come into Picture.
You would be amazed to see what they do Today if you were Impressed with Work you saw then! )) Admittedly some is by increased
Social Media Presence but there was Case lately - avoid hitting a Cat.... Cat climbed into the Undercarriage of Police Car so
they had to lift the whole thing to get it out... They are of course pushing this Naratives - but it is indication that they are
increasingly considering Public Perception.
In general I see DPS working reasonably well (Mostly I am in Moscow but I am from the South). Of course though Russians will
do as Russians will do, so most expensive S600 will still cover its Plates parking on the Footpath to avoid paying the most inoffensive
of Fines...
"... Until you can talk about the problem -- that the 'Republican Intellectual Elite' means the neocons (who promote each other and keep everyone else out) -- you can't do anything about it. This group polices what is intellectually respectable on the right and and you aren't allowed to cross them if you want to stay on the inside. ..."
"... neoconservatism still is the conservative establishment. If you want a 'fellow' of some institute to represent the 'conservative' point of view you are going to get someone who is more or less a neocon. ..."
"... Trump has not changed a thing about who the establishment is: but he threatens change which is one reason why they hate him. It's not that they have gone away but that they have been discredited and won't go away because they have the infrastructure. ..."
And for that matter, let us recall that it was the best and brightest of the Republican
Party's defense and national security elite that led the nation into its worst foreign policy
debacle since Vietnam. Did you see Ken Burns's recent Vietnam documentary? Did you see Errol
Morris's fantastic documentary The Fog of War , about Robert McNamara and Vietnam?
Those were Democratic Party elites, but the most important fact is that they were
American elites, just as the Republican elites that led us into Iraq. And it was
American elites -- Republican and Democrat -- that led us into the 2008 economic
crash, beginning with the Clinton-era deregulation of Wall Street, continued through the George
W. Bush era.
My problem with Donald Trump is not so much that he's a populist rebuke to the GOP elites
(who deserve it) but that he's a loudmouth incompetent who's so bad at it -- and his most
ardent supporters let him get away with it. This tax bill, which he embraces, gives lie to any
substantive claim that Trump is a populist.
... ... ...
Yes, the GOP is putrefying. So is the Democratic Party (as Edsall's analysis reveals). The
rot began long before Donald Trump showed up on the political scene. He is both symptom and
catalyst, but he didn't start the rot.
He's absolutely right, of course, and the Republicans who voted for that unpopular (see
here and here), help-the-rich, deficit-exploding tax bill
Oh, get off it. The bill greatly expands the standard deduction, which reduces the value
of all itemized deductions (itemized deductions help the wealthy). It reduces the mortgage
interest and SALT deductions, which subsidize rich New Yorkers and Californians (the real
reason Democrats hate this bill). It increases the child credit (maybe not enough, but some).
A number of analyses show that it will give a modest post-tax income boost across the income
spectrum. As for the estate tax thing, remember that heirs pay capital gains and other taxes
(e.g. local property) on their inherited assets; tweaking the cost-basis people calculate on
inherited assets (I would set it to zero if I were king) could get the feds the same revenue
as an estate tax.
It is not a perfect or even that great of a bill, but stop robotically repeating every
apocalyptic denunciation of it (literally apocalyptic: Nancy Pelosi said the bill is
"Armageddon" and "the end of the world"; and others are screaming that the bill will
murder people).
NFR: On tax policy and economics, he's governing like a standard-issue plutocratic
Republican
Not on trade. Not on immigration. Pay attention.
On foreign policy, he's reducing American power abroad and making war more likely
Have you gone back to neoconservatism?
[NFR: Please. It delights me to think of the yoga-like contortions you're having to do to
justify your man's recognition of Jerusalem as Israel's capital. -- RD]
Until you can talk about the problem -- that the 'Republican Intellectual Elite' means the
neocons (who promote each other and keep everyone else out) -- you can't do anything about it.
This group polices what is intellectually respectable on the right and and you aren't allowed
to cross them if you want to stay on the inside.
Potentially influential people can't talk about these guys because if you do you lose your
job. This happens even now, there was a case within the last couple of months that comes to
mind.
Even though this group's plans have proceed disastrous time after time, these people are
beyond criticism and never suffer any consequences when their actions lead to real world death
and destruction.
[NFR: But that's just it -- neoconservatism *was* the conservative establishment, until
Trump came along. -- RD]
No, neoconservatism still is the conservative establishment. If you want a 'fellow' of some
institute to represent the 'conservative' point of view you are going to get someone who is
more or less a neocon.
Trump has not changed a thing about who the establishment is: but he threatens change
which is one reason why they hate him. It's not that they have gone away but that they have
been discredited and won't go away because they have the infrastructure.
"More and more former Republicans wake up every day and realize: "I'm homeless. I'm politically
homeless."
Sheepishly raises hand. I was always a Republican not because of any of a thousand issues,
but because I believed Republicans knew how to run an efficient, financially prudent
government. It was the party of conservative values like work and integrity.
Democrats were the party of budget deficits, handouts, war and favored constituencies. The
Republicans have become the Democrats of old, just tweaking who gets the handouts.
GWB's second term was the first time I ever voted for a democrats across the line. Not
because I care about their policies (they're basically Republican anyway), but just because its
the only way I have to slap the GOP in my small way.
The GOP has become the party of radical incompetence. An embarrassment. I see little
difference between Trump and Hillary. And most Republicans I know think there is an ocean
between them. That's how small their world has become.
The rot afflicting the G.O.P. is comprehensive -- moral, intellectual, political and
reputational. More and more former Republicans wake up every day and realize: "I'm homeless.
I'm politically homeless."
Cry me a river. A lot of Americans have felt this way way for decades. Pew Research Center
polling has consistently shown that the largest group of Americans tilts socially to the right
but economically to the left. There has not been a party since FDRs Democrats that felt like a
home for these people.
Given that we have a two-party system, and that's unlikely to change, I would rather that at
least one party begin represent a significant portion of the population again.
The US sanctions were partially anticompetitive move to block Russia selling its hydrocarbons to lucrative EU market.
Now Russia is becoming a major player in LNG and things might become more complex for the USA as all US efforts to built LNG
infrastructure int he USA in order to export the US LNG to Europe now are can backfire.
Notable quotes:
"... Russia plans to build 15 tankers as big as the 'Christophe de Margerie'. ..."
"... "Russia must accelerate work on development capacity to produce liquefied natural gas," Putin said at the ceremony. ..."
"... Costing $27 billion, the plant will have three production lines and a total capacity of 16.5 million tons of LNG per year. ..."
"... Shareholders of the Novatek project - Total and CNPC - will purchase LNG on a long-term basis. ..."
"... The ceremony was also attended by a member of Saudi Aramco's board of directors. The kingdom is considering taking part in Novatek's new project, Arctic LNG 2, according to Russian Energy Minister Aleksandr Novak. ..."
Russia has opened a liquefied natural gas (LNG) plant in the country's northern region of
Yamal. The first tanker with LNG was launched on Friday by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
The ice-breaking tanker is named after the former CEO of Total Christophe de Margerie who died
in a plane crash in Russia. The tanker can carry up to 173,000 cubic meters of LNG. Russia
plans to build 15 tankers as big as the 'Christophe de Margerie'.
"Russia must accelerate work on development capacity to produce liquefied natural
gas," Putin said at the ceremony.
The controlling stake in the enterprise belongs to Russian energy major Novatek. Twenty
percent each is owned by Total, and China's CNPC, and the remaining 9.9 percent belongs to the
China-based Silk Road Fund. Costing $27 billion, the plant will have three production lines and a total capacity of 16.5
million tons of LNG per year.
Almost 96 percent of the Yamal LNG plant's production has already been contracted. The main
customers will be the countries of the Asia-Pacific region, Novatek reported. Shareholders of the Novatek project - Total and CNPC - will purchase LNG on a long-term
basis.
The ceremony was also attended by a member of Saudi Aramco's board of directors. The kingdom
is considering taking part in Novatek's new project, Arctic LNG 2, according to Russian Energy
Minister Aleksandr Novak.
"... Trump has just declared that the U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Did the administration expect the applause of the Saudis for its breaking of international law with regards to Jerusalem? Does it lash out to the Saudis to get their agreement? ..."
"... If so the miscalculation is clearly on the U.S. side. It is impossible for the Saudis to concede the Haram al-Sharif, the mosque on the so called temple mount, to the Zionists. The Saudi King would no longer be the "custodian of the two holy mosques" in Mecca and Medina but the "seller of the third holy mosque" of Islam in Jerusalem. The people would kill him and his whole family. ..."
"... My pet hypothesis is Trump's recognizing Jerusalem was the bone he was willing to throw the Israelis after his generals told him attacking Iran would be catastrophic for the US military and world economy. The Saudis, who are as rabid about bombing Iran as the Zionists, were pissed as they probably had been led to believe the attack was a matter of time. ..."
"... That sacked FM - Is that the little fellow that Col Lang calls "The Chihuahua"? ..."
"... Saudi in all likelihood were not part of the Jerusalem declaration. Israeli sources spread a plan they said was agreed to by Saudi, trying to embarrass them. ..."
"... Jerusalem: The reaction is deeper than expected. Not in the way of street, easily contained, violence, but by a gut reaction of the whole ME..The religious aspect seems to have been totally ignored by the US. Removing one of the major symbols of about 1.2 billion people - is not going to go down well. ..."
"... wahabbi is a tavistock british demented fiendish virus injected into islam for gang counter gang pseudogang hagel control ..."
"... I do wonder...knowing that real or false-flag violence could ensue against Israeli or US targets, it could be a useful pretext for the US waging war in the ME against Hezbullah or anyone else we accuse. With our intelligence agencies providing the "evidence" and a compliant media to sell it, as usual a majority of Americans would support it. ..."
"... This Jerusalem declaration has me genuinely scared. Violence (real or false flag) could be the expected Reaction to this Problem, resulting in the long-planned Solution of finishing off MENA. If Russia is sincere in its alliance with Syria and Iran, and interest in a multi-polar world with self-determination for sovereign nations, this war could easily escalate to the End Timer's dreamt of Final Battle of Armageddon. ..."
"... Most of the MSM coverage of Reactions I've seen name Muslim/Arab countries as opposing, and others as "concerned," even though almost all official state responses have denounced President Trump's® declaration. This "Clash of Civilizations" type narrative is not encouraging. ..."
"... something stinks in trumptoon. really small world what are the chances A. whenever Donald Trump has left the White House and ventured anywhere, Dmitry Rybolovlev (aka the "Russian King of Fertilizer") has tended to show up in the same city. The latter possibility has long been bolstered by the fact that Trump sold Rybolovlev a mansion a few years ago that neither of them lived in nor cared about, suggesting the sale was mere cover for shifting money from Russia to Trump. ..."
"... Western media called Putin unpredictable, but that was because he could see moves that others didn't see. ..."
Just the day before the administration leaked to the WSJ about the art deal, President Trump
had publicly
scolded MbS about the situation in Yemen:
President Trump called on Saudi Arabia to lift its crushing blockade against its war-torn
neighbor Yemen on Wednesday, hours after defying the kingdom and saying the U.S. would
recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel .
In a statement Wednesday afternoon, Mr. Trump said he had directed members of his
administration to reach out to the Saudi leadership "to request that they completely allow
food, fuel, water, and medicine to reach the Yemeni people who desperately need it."
Speaking in Paris on Friday, Rex Tillerson, US secretary of state, called on Saudi Arabia to
be "measured" in its military operations in Yemen.
...
Tillerson urged Saudi restraint.
"With respect to Saudi Arabia's engagement with Qatar, how they're handling the Yemen war
that they're engaged in, the Lebanon situation, we would encourage them to be a bit more
measured and a bit more thoughtful in those actions to, I think, fully consider the
consequences," he said.
He once again demanded a "complete end" to the Saudi-led blockade of Yemen so that
humanitarian aid and commercial supplies could be delivered.
Embarrassing MbS about the art buy and publicly(!) scolding hm for the situation in Yemen,
for which the U.S. is just as much responsible as the Saudis, is quite an assault. What has MbS
done - or not done - to deserve such a punishment?
Trump has just
declared that the U.S. recognizes Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Did the
administration expect the applause of the Saudis for its breaking of international law with
regards to Jerusalem? Does it lash out to the Saudis to get their agreement?
If so the miscalculation is clearly on the U.S. side. It is impossible for the Saudis to
concede the Haram al-Sharif, the mosque on the so called temple mount, to the Zionists. The
Saudi King would no longer be the "custodian of the two holy mosques" in Mecca and Medina but
the "seller of the third holy mosque" of Islam in Jerusalem. The people would kill him and his
whole family.
If the issue of this public hustle it is not Jerusalem, what else might it be that the Trump
administration wants and the Saudis can not, or are not willing to concede?
A few hours ago the Saudi King fired his ankle biting Foreign
Minster Adel al-Jubair. A relative of the king, Khaled bin Salman, will take the job. Is this
related to the spat with Trump?
The Saudi Foreign Minister, 'Adel Al-Jubeir, has been allegedly sacked by the Kingdom's
regime, several prominent political activists reported this evening.
According to the claims, Jubeir was fired and replaced by a close confidant of Crown
Prince Mohammad bin Salman.
The confidant that is allegedly replacing Jubeir is none other than Prince Khaled bin
Salman, the Crown Prince's brother.
The Saudi regime has yet to confirm or deny these rumors.
Where does MbS's interpretation of Salvator Mundi come from. The Saudi's have something with
crystal orbs, like the one Trump so fondly stroked in Riyadh after giving a masterful
interpretation of the sword dance.
Yes. It is puzzling what is going on between MbS and the Trump administration. I was sure
MbS, the reformer, secretly okayed the Jerusalem move. His negative statement might be just
theater, I figured. But I am not so sure anymore. Yes, MbS wants a peace deal (any deal with
"peace" written on it) between Palestinians and Israelis. But both he and Trump/Kushner are
novices in politics and diplomacy (and that ain't the same as getting a deal for a new tower)
and absolutely underestimated the effort. Totally.
Word is that Kushner made Trump delay delivering his campaign promise because he needed
more time for his peace plan (and that would be 6 months???). This is the level they are at.
And now, they placed an obvious obstacle in the path go their peace plan - out of folly.
Complete folly. Because Trump wanted to deliver. I believe they are already backtracking as
good as they can. But the damage is done. I think Palestinians were just waiting for a good
opportunity/reason to get rid of the US in the process and found it now. Also, the single
state solution is being talked about.
The source for the WSJ need not be the Trump administration in the narrow sense but some
stray intelligence official ("U.S. intelligence reports") wanting to throw a wrench because
that story is absolutely damaging. Absolutely, because it is embarrassing and I don't think
MbS enjoys that. Note, the story began to become known around the time it became obvious
Trump would not sign the waiver and reached its epitome (WSJ) just after that. Trump set
himself up for this.
My pet hypothesis is Trump's recognizing Jerusalem was the bone he was willing to throw
the Israelis after his generals told him attacking Iran would be catastrophic for the US
military and world economy. The Saudis, who are as rabid about bombing Iran as the Zionists,
were pissed as they probably had been led to believe the attack was a matter of time. In
order to remind them of their position and get them on board with the "peace" deal Tillerson
has been hinting about, they've been turning the screws on MBS as a taste of what's to come
if he puts up stink about the wonderful Kushner- concocted "plan".
$450 mil... MbS's Egyptian torturer-in-chief must have just torn a few princely nails and
whip a few feet for that, just a few days' worth of "anti-corruption" "campaigning".
Wait, wasn't the Saudi populace all behind MbS because he was going to spend the money on
them? If there is no bread, let them non-royals eat paint.
About the picture - after the shake down of
Saudi Arabia's rich princes MBS must have a lot of enemies. Some of these princes might
have been close to the Trump administration.
Gazan military groups are warming up to a rocket competition. I am sure the real stuff is
not involved yet. What were they thinking? That people did not take the chance to unite on
the only issue they all agree on?
4
I agree, Saudi in all likelihood were not part of the Jerusalem declaration. Israeli
sources spread a plan they said was agreed to by Saudi, trying to embarrass them.
MbS is in it for himself, no one else. Leave him aside for the moment.
However, Trump probably thought he had a marvellous peace plan for Palestine which he
would show the world.... errr... tomorrow. This was supposed to have the backing of the
Saudis and the Israelis and all the other ME "actors" would be lined up behind MbS.
ie. Saudis would provide the backing, which included the "Arab" states as per the recent
gathering of them all (excluding Iran and Iraq). Abbas would be blackmailed to go along in
order to keep his position (Moneywise), and the Palestinians as well - but by the withholding
of funds. (New vote in Congress).
Leaks of the plan (unverified) suggest that the PA's would be held in walled-in isolated
camps, with all contact subject to the harassement and nightly raids of the IDF, the land
still open to theft by settlers (this has been "legalised" in Israel !) and so on. ie they
get nothing except a tissue-paper "treaty" . They seem not to have even been consulted by
Kushner and the Israelis. ie who possibly expected to be able to impose whatever Netanyahu
and the Israeli Generals might allow.
BUT, when have either the US or Israel kept to an agreement - never. and the PA's and the
rest of the ME know it.
Jerusalem: The reaction is deeper than expected. Not in the way of street, easily
contained, violence, but by a gut reaction of the whole ME..The religious aspect seems to
have been totally ignored by the US. Removing one of the major symbols of about 1.2 billion
people - is not going to go down well.
Those countries with a large Palestinian refugee population, either fear them, or may be
outnumbered if there are more arriving (Jordan), or will find that they now have a potential
source of militants at their disposal.. (Syria?, Lebanon?). The Syrians and Lebanese have not
let the Palestinians get more arms - yet, as they might have become targets themselves. But,
there have been PA's in the Syrian counter-terrorist forces, even when Yarmouk camp was held
by Daesh (or one of the others).
So I think that the "bit" players have got cold feet. They cannot go along with the
eradication of the Palestinians or their confinement to concentrated internement camps such
as Gaza, whose conditions are WORSE that prisons. Otherwise the whole "Rulers-People and the
power-structures that keep them in place" would be in jeopardy.
......
The Leonardo ? .... acquiring "class" by buying expensive "cultural" artifacts. You can buy a
lot of "class" with $450.3 million.
a simple question who gets the 100s of millions? who is the seller? the fake painting is
cover for a payoff or tribute yes no maybe friends of kushner own the painting maybe it is to
help kushner and his 666 moloch tower block mortgage. the bank of gorge soros must need some
fund back quick for a new hungary regime change operation.
wahabbi is a tavistock british demented fiendish virus injected into islam for gang
counter gang pseudogang hagel control
uae and the house of saud are donmeh jews
satanist hate jesus.
simply google talmud quotes about jesus and all will become clear.
As to how the Jerusalem actions play out, the posting here (MOA) a couple of days ago was
informative as to reasons and timing (including info about Sheldon Adelson's hundred million
to Trump campaign). I do wonder...knowing that real or false-flag violence could ensue
against Israeli or US targets, it could be a useful pretext for the US waging war in the ME
against Hezbullah or anyone else we accuse. With our intelligence agencies providing the
"evidence" and a compliant media to sell it, as usual a majority of Americans would support
it.
Great stuff, b et al. This Jerusalem declaration has me genuinely scared. Violence (real
or false flag) could be the expected Reaction to this Problem, resulting in the long-planned
Solution of finishing off MENA. If Russia is sincere in its alliance with Syria and Iran, and
interest in a multi-polar world with self-determination for sovereign nations, this war could
easily escalate to the End Timer's dreamt of Final Battle of Armageddon.
Most of the MSM coverage of Reactions I've seen name Muslim/Arab countries as
opposing, and others as "concerned," even though almost all official state responses have
denounced President Trump's® declaration. This "Clash of Civilizations" type narrative is
not encouraging.
@ Daniel ending with "This "Clash of Civilizations" type narrative is not encouraging." That
is exactly what they want you to focus on as a narrative rather than the simple truth about
the demise of private banking. On the previous thread about the Republican: Ryan deficit BS
there was a commenter ex-SA with a John H. Hotson link that I want to see go viral because it
simply explains the history of the Gordian Knot we face as a species
"Banking came into existence as a fraud. The fraud was legalized and we've been living with
the consequences, both good and bad, ever since. Even so it is also a great invention-right
up there with fire, the wheel, and the steam engine."
Clash of Civilizations is as vapid a meme as the common understanding of the Capitalism
myth as that article so clearly states. Spread his word far and wide to wake up the zombies. It is time!
17 something stinks in trumptoon. really small world what are the chances A. whenever Donald Trump has left the White House and ventured anywhere, Dmitry Rybolovlev
(aka the "Russian King of Fertilizer") has tended to show up in the same city.
The latter possibility has long been bolstered by the fact that Trump sold Rybolovlev a
mansion a few years ago that neither of them lived in nor cared about, suggesting the sale
was mere cover for shifting money from Russia to Trump.
Deutsche Bank in Germany busted for laundering more than ten billion dollars out of Russia
and into places like New York. This stood out because Deutsche has also loaned more than a
billion dollars to Donald Trump, who just happens to be based out of New York.
thanks b.. fascinating.. i wait for the next shoe to drop.. it's coming... hopefully we get
the back story on this sooner then later..
i would think the timing of Foreign Minster Adel al-Jubair being fired has something to do
with all this.. he revealed something that he wasn't supposed to? i would also imagine those
heavies still hanging at the saudi ritz carlton might be pulling some strings from behind the
scenes? meanwhile mbz is doing a hell of a fine apprentice with mbs, lol..
nice pic in the post btw!! clown prince as savior of ksa, lol...
Belief in Jerusalem as the Jew capital is the same as belief in the intrinsic value of fiat
currency, or the exceptionalism of the US. It's just mental illness. The Kingdom of God is
within you, not in temples of stone and wood. We'd be better just cultivating our own
personal relationship with our higher selves and leave the deluded to scrap it out over ash
and sand. That said, if someone with a big nose came to my door and said my house was going
to get knocked down because Shalom etc, that would be the day I would have to really figure
out how to proceed without becoming the necessary victim in another's persecutor drama
complex. I guess that's what Palestinians have to deal with every day. Horrible situation.
I heard a story once that when the British were throwing the Aborigines of Australia off
cliffs en masse in their Australian version of the Middle East story of dispossession and
demonization, the Aborigines would look up calmly at the officers as they fell and in their
own language say: "You have a problem, bro". Sometimes death is better than becoming a
victim. And as a worshiper of Lord Shiva the Destroyer, I wish you all completely liberating
and renewing deaths from yourselves.
But, has not The Donald declared that this media NYT, Bloomberg , etc...were all "fake
news"?
Then why is anybody going to trust them when publishing whatever?
Sounds quite clumsy, or simply, demential ( as every move of this administration ) to try to
leak something through those media you have widely discredited during all your election
campaign and beyond....
I, by a norm, do not trust any move coming from Trump could be for any good. This is, simply,
"smoke and mirrors" and an intent of whitewashing a bit the already deplorable image of this
admnistration in front of the world wide reaction in rejection of his bold and clumsy
declaration of Jerusalem as capital of the Zionist regime.
The same for the clearly hypocritical call for to alleviate the suffering of the Yemeni
people, just another intent of whitewashing when they are main puppet-masters in that war
torn country, as it happens with every conflict in the world.
What it is beyond me is that the Russians, are always amongst those who swallow this theater
plays....I wonder why....
In front of the demential way this administration makes fun of every event, people,
country... in the world, in spite of the suffering they could inflict on them, I concur with
Terry in that this just could be some esotheric issue more proper of unoccupied people with
too much money to waste. Most probably something involving "Damian" Kushner, his 666,Madison
Avenue penthouse and an occult message from The Messiah in the reverse of the canvas of that
Jesus paint with a codified message on the results of the coming final battle of Armaggedon
amongst the forces of evil and those of good, when Russia will be santified as the real
Promised Land and The Saker will be ( finally! ) crowned as the saint he always claimed to be
along with Saint Nicolas Romanov, and they will all eat sardinas together with the
Trumps, the Kushners and the Netanyahus in Mar a Lago or in the super-yatch of
Abramovich during the summer, but in winter they will go together to Sochi´s Putin
dacha, since they love to meet super-intelligent, well educated, cool people....well, the
elite of everything...
The surviving Arabs and the rest of us, plebeian ignorant clumsy sinners not so white as
them, ( what they call "the sheeple", vaya )we will continue working from sunrise to sunset
for crumbs, but, who cares? We will continue having good times with our peers and loved ones
and laughing as usual with the little things of real life...Do not despair....
Western media called Putin unpredictable, but that was because he could see moves that others
didn't see. Erdogan looked unpredictable and irrational while moving from the hedgemon to the
multi-polar world.
Trump? Like Erdogan, trying to move US to the multi polar world?
Too many moves he makes puts sand in the hedgemon's gears.
MAIDAN SNIPERS. One of the founding myths of the "Revolution of Dignity" was the massacre on
the Maidan. Ivan Katchanovski has proved, to anyone with the capacity for objective thought,
that it was a false flag operation; here is his paper ;
here is a summary
.
Two Georgian snipers have come forward to confess; here is a summary
of what they said with links to the original. The story continues to develop and Katchanovski
is following it .
"... Pentagon "weaponised information" years ago: " Revealed: US spy operation that manipulates social media ".) ..."
"... The collapse of the Fusion GPS operation will unravel the whole construction. And it's coming . ( And don't forget Awan .) All this because the Dems fixed their nomination and then lost anyway. ..."
What is the problem of having contacts with Russia ? As to the Ukraine, USA, EU and NATO
should leave there. We in Europe do not want the war NATO, USA and EU are seeking. We want
normal relations with the country we had a lot of trade with, much of which has disappeared
because of sanctions, made possible by the deaths of over 300 passengers aboard MH17.
My country, the Netherlands, objected most to sanctions, we exported a lot to Russia, on
the day after the disaster objections had vanished. So it was very lucky for those who wanted
to impose sanctions that a plane from Schiphol Amsterdam was hit. Despite that Russia just
has disadvantages of the disaster, and the west advantages, the continuing investigation,
that will never end, Peyton Place, does anything possible to continue stating vague
accusations against Putin.
Suspect Ukraine has been permitted to take part in the investigations.
Ukraine has become a tragical farce, is such a paradox exists.
I doubt anybody can dissect who finances Saakashvili. To me he seems to be anothe proxy,
Timoshenko ?
The Ukranian people are the victims here, untold billions being stolen from the people, a
lethargic civil war, that could have been avoided...
What beggars belief really is that some Ukranian politicians held the belief that they could
join NATO and Sevastopol become a NATO base.. That is just alternate reality, and it must be
clear to anyone that it was a no-go. There is a reason Finland is not part of NATO, even
though they are fiercely independent.
The Ukrainian politicians should have taken lessons in "Real-Politik" from Willy Brandt.
Sorry, im against all the antirussian hysteria, but the idea that shakavili is now being paid
by the russians to stir up trouble is just to delicious an irony, not to believe
Saakashvili was the President of Georgia who shelled and invaded South Ossetia back in 2012.
This led to the "Russo-Georgian War" when Russia came to the assistance of the people of
South Ossetia.
Faux Newz had an interesting moment when they interviewed a young American girl who had
recently fled the war. They assumed she was onboard the Russophobia train, but she and her
aunt insisted that Saakashvili was the aggressor and Russia had come to their rescue.
So, I would doubt that Saakashvili is supported by Russia. It's not impossible since
RealPolitiks can make for very strange bedfellows. Saakashvili is a fugitive in two countries
right now, and could be a useful tool for further delegitimizing the Ukrainian putsch
regime.
I think it is Yulia Tymoshenko behind Saakashvili
She seems to be the only oligarch not making out like a bandit plundering Ukraine!!! This
time round!!!
I feel sorry for the Ukrainian people.
At the end of the Soviet Union they had the most potential, but for some reason they seem to
have too many corrupt and ideologically ( neo Nazi) driven politicians. A recipe for conflict
in a country made up of bits and pieces of other countries with Greeks, Hungarians, Jews,
Russians, poles and other groups with their own cultures and identities. The Soviet Union
could keep a lid on all this as it was a large multi- ethnic space, but Ukraine seeking a
single identity is causing the country to split
Saakashvili is a clown and is not the saviour they need. But he could force the country to
declare early elections - then Tymoshenko will reveal herself
From what I recall about Saakashvili entering illegally Ukraine from Poland, he was helped by
the supporters of Timoshenko party.
Concerning the "clownish character", he does not seem to stand out from Ukrainian norm.
There are tons of reasons for popular discontent, and a considerable surplus of leaders who
want to channel that discontent, and as followers of American political scene know, it helps
to be "colorful" (note to HRC: some people are natural in that respect, and some, including
those that you can see in your bathroom, are anything but).
Support for Batkivshchina, the political party of Timoshenko, was in high single digits,
and anti-corruption credibility could lift it a bit. Timoshenko herself oscillated between
"Russian stooge" and ultra-nationalist, and had some period as a tycoon with shady deals
(with Gasprom). She is also a former prime minister with passable tenure, and, given her age,
has pretty hair and face. Energetic Misha can complement her nicely.
Saakashvilli was and is American puppet in Ukraine and at home in Georgia and hence he was
not blown up like those who do not have explicitly protection from US embassy in the
maddening frenzy of collapsing political and moral system in Ukraine spurring brutal murder
spree among warring oligarchic mafia fighting for IMF loot.
Now even authentic Ukrainian Nazis are fed up with Poroshenko the pig, and want him dead
due to him being an western agent of as they put it moral decay and culture anihilatiing
globalism and that include promotion of LGBT mafia he belongs himself. A war between Nazi
grass roots in the west of Ukraine as well as moderate Russian ethnic conservatives in
Donbass area against US/NATO trained and equipped SBU run Kiev regime continues demonstrated
by sheer terror brutality and murder as well as comical episodes like that while collapse of
quite developed civil society continues into barbarism under US plans as it happened in
Afghanistan, Iraq and now in Yemen and Ukraine.
Could Mikhail Khodorkovsky be the "Russian middleman" financing the antics of Saakashvili and
his supporters?
Tymoshenko may be paying Saakashvili and his supporters but this would not work for her
long-term, in that if she became President, Saakashvili would feel entitled to demand a
senior position in her government and he might become a thorn in her side. He could easily
switch sides if she denies him a position and work to undermine her. So no, I don't think
Tymoshenko would be paying him.
More likely someone or a government outside Ukraine who could play Poroshenko, Tymoshenko
or another ambitious oligarch politician off against one other, who would use Saakashvili and
his fan base as tools to push Ukrainian politics this way and that, and who has the money to
do so, is paying Saakashvili.
I am beginning to think that the strategy is to have enough geo-political balls in the air
that obscure and suck focus from the real shit going on so no global consensus can emerge to
stop the insanity.
And it seems to be working for the moment as it has for the past couple of centuries of
rule by the private finance elite.
Well...that is one pretty good sketch of pure slapstick...had me in stitches for a while...
The problem with Ukraine is simple...the US interference since day one...
Think Russia under Yeltsin...but which never got fixed...
Ukraine has been part of Russia for hundreds of years...the difference between the
'Ukrainian' language and Russian is so superficial as to be something like the difference
between say American and Australian English...
...kind of like 'Serbian' and 'Croatian'...
Belarus is an example of a stable post-Soviet society that knows well it doesn't belong in
this Frankenstein 'Europe' of today...
The Orange Revolution was brought on by the usual suspects...ie US and its Euro
proxies...and it failed miserably...
In the next election the people brought Yanukovich back...not to mention that he had won
that disputed election in 2004 anyway...
Then in 2014...the crazy neocons of the Kagan clan went for the gusto...a full-blown
putch...with paid snipers and blackwater mercenaries...
And so the people of Ukraine are sliding into a European version of Yemen...
Ukraine inherited a large part of the Soviet military industrial capacity after
1991...including the crucial human expertise in very high tech sectors like jet and rocket
engines...airframes...and much more...
It was a no-brainer that these industries and the educational system underpinning them
could be a springboard for mutually beneficial economic integration with Russia...think of
Airbus and its French, German and other European partners...
Russia is today a medium-income country with a per capita GDP
[PPP] on a par with EU member Greece and not far behind Italy and Spain...
For the ordinary person Russia is a paradise compared to Ukraine...with three times higher
income...
We find Ukraine trailing countries like Namibia, El Salvador and Morocco...
Even the Eastern European countries like Czech, Poland and Hungary are still far from the
income levels of the major Western European countries...relatively speaking they have not
improved their lot from the Soviet days...
Only now all their industries are foreign-owned...bought for pennies on the dollar...they
pay high prices for
second-class food...
And where they had free university education that was probably second to none in
quality...now they pay through the nose...
Even in the Czech Republic which is the highest income country of the former eastern
bloc...many people feel that things have not improved in the last 25 years...
The fall has been greatest for Ukraine...and certainly this can be traced back to the
constant tugging of the West...not to say outright interference on a criminal level...
Even Germany has long since realized that it needs Russia and that Russia is good for
German business...so how is it that Russia's immediate neighbors...many of which were part of
Russia for centuries...think that they can now burn all bridges...?
It is insane...that's the kind of change only a neocon can believe in...
That's pretty much my take. We are constantly bombarded by "Breaking News" events that
amount to an endless parade of squirrels for us to chase, while real stuff is going on
largely under the radar.
I don't know how deep the connections of that ancient financial elite really go. I think
everyone here agrees that they own/control both party flavors in the US, though some still
want to believe that Trump is somehow breaking that mold (a thesis I find completely
unsubstantiated except as portrayed in the Reality TV Show of political theater).
But, are Russia or China really somewhat independent competitors, or is even that level of
seeming conflict really just manufactured diversion? When I see IMF backing for both of those
countries, I have to wonder just how much BRIC, One Road, etc. are sincere resistance to the
Globalists.
Was Hitler really just a tool for the banksters? Did the Bolsheviks really hijack the
Russian Revolution at the behest of the global banksters?
Is resistance really futile, or are we led to believe the Globalists are much more
powerful than they really are, and their Empire is really just a house of cards that we, the
people could topple easily with mass strikes and boycotts, combined with establishing our own
means of providing the basic necessities to survive the Revolution?
I see large numbers of Honduran police have publicly refused to follow regime orders
against their fellow citizens. Every successful revolution has followed from significant
numbers of the enforcers of the Elite refusing orders and joining with the people.
Saakashvili's involvement in Ukraine goes deeper than his purported anti-corruption campaign.
It seems he was one of the players behind the Maidan massacre, while being aligned with that
scumbag zionist-Ukrainian oligarch Kolomoisky. (see below)
Italy's 11th largest newspaper – Il Giornale – reported on an admission by
several of the snipers
Revazishvilli's confessions and two other Georgians reveal a different and
disconcerting truth. Revazishvilli and his two companions are a former member of the
security services of former Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and two former militants
of his party."
Coincidentally (?) Georgian mercenaries were also a significant component of Kolomoisky's
private army which committed some of the worst atrocities and repeatedly undermined any
attempts to establish a ceasefire. Kolomoisky was forced to back down by the U.S. from his
confrontational stance with Valtzman (Poroshenko) over the division of spoils from the
systematic looting of the Ukraine. His ouster as Governor of Dnipropetrovsk and subsequent
marginalization from the 'spoils of the victors' by Poroshenko likely produced one very
unhappy customer. Kolomoisky, given his history and past actions, does not seem to be the
type of character who would take this lying down.(see following article) His ties to
Saakashvili are quite extensive prior to the rift over Odessa (staged or backstabbing?)
Some of the Georgians who serve in Kolomoisky's Army have reportedly been trained in
the use of BUK missile systems previously sold by Ukraine to Georgia under the presidency of
Mikheil Saakashvili. Kolomoisky has utilized ex-President Saakashvili's "consulting services"
in Dnipropetrovsk in the military and political campaign against the breakaway people's
republics of Donetsk and Luhansk.
"The problem with Ukraine is simple...the US interference since day one "
Its not quite that simple. The problem with Ukraine is that it has become a mafia state
run by organized crime with some three dozen oligarchs controlling approximately 85% of the
economy.
President Kuchma's regime institutionalized the organized crime element in the government in
a manner similar to Yeltsin's action in Russia. The fact that the U.S. government aligned
itself with one oligarchic faction came subsequent to this.
I agree with some here who seem to suggest that this is no more than smoke and mirrors, since
the real thing, which is no other than spreading and consolidation of fascism throughout
Europe and the world, is happening behind the scenes....While you laugh at Saakashvili,
nobody thinks of Parubyi....
"(...)So this is Andriy Parubiy who, as the President of the Ukrainian Parliament (a
position conferred on him in April 2016 for his democratic achievements), was received on 5
June at Montecitorio by the President of the House, Laura Boldrini. "Italy - emphasized
President Boldrini - has always condemned the illegal action that took place to the
detriment of the Ukrainian territory". Thus she has gobbled up the Nato version according
to which it was Russia that had illegally annexed Crimea, a version that fails to take into
account that the Russians of Crimea chose to break away from Ukraine and to re-enter Russia
- a decision taken to pre-empt an attack, just like the decision taken by the Russians of
Donbass, by Neo Nazi battalions and Kiev's other forces.
The cordial conversation was concluded by signing a memorandum of understanding that
"further strengthens parliamentary cooperation between the two assemblies, both at the
political and administrative level".
Thus it strengthens cooperation between the Italian Republic, born out of the Resistance
against Nazi-fascism, and a regime that created in Ukraine a situation analogous to that
which brought into being the fascism of the 1920s and Nazism in the 1930s. The Azov
battalion, whose Nazi signature is represented by the emblem inspired by the SS Das Reich
emblem, has been incorporated into the National Guard, transformed into a regular military
unit and promoted to the rank of a regiment for special operations.
Then it was supplied with armoured transport and artillery. With other Neo-Nazi
formations, transformed into regular units, it is trained by US instructors from the 173a
Air Transport division, transferred from Vicenza to Ukraine, flanked by others from
Nato.
The Ukraine of Kiev has thus become the "nursery" for born-again Nazism right in the
heart of Europe. Neo-Nazis flow into Kiev from all over Europe, including Italy. After
being trained and tested out in military action against the Russians of Ukraine in Donbass,
they have been made to return to their countries. Now it is left to Nato to rejuvenate the
ranks of Gladio."
13,18, and 19 may be correct.. I am no expert, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikheil_Saakashvili
(mentions):
IIR (Intnl Law) TSNU-Kyiv (Ukraine, 1992) Poroshenko discovered. HRTs officer after Pres
Zviad Gamsakhurdia (Georgia)deposed; (US State Dept(Ed Muskie Graduate Fellowship
mentioned?). Columbia Law School, LLm 1994; GW Univ Law School; diploma Intl Institute of HR,
Strasbourg, France. Check wikipedia for details.
@ Daniel who engaged me with contextual musings, pantaraxia who writes that the US is behind
one of the oligarchs and elsi who agrees that there is lots of "smoke and mirrors"
First to pantaraxia I want to write that while you may see the US behind one faction of
oligarchs, I would argue (without links) that the global private finance elite are behind
each and every oligarch you can name...it is a religion after all, don't you know? If one is
an oligarch in our small world you can take it to the bank (pun intended) that they are well
connected/subserviant to the top-rung elite in some way.
To Elsi, Fascism provides a powerful front for the structure of our current form of social
organization with private finance and private property protected by unfettered inheritance at
the core of elite support. All/most of the corporations form the circle around the private
finance core and are controlled by the top rung elite where they are not outright owned.
To Daniel I would state my ongoing postulate that turning private finance into a public
utility and ending inheritance/ongoing ownership of private property would structurally
change the incentives we live our lives by....for the better. I would posit that any
successful evolution of our species must make that one change to our social structure and the
results would "solve all our problems" by changing the fundamental way in which we relate to
each other....competition/cooperation.
Daniel @ 21 said: "When I see IMF backing for both of those countries, I have to wonder just
how much BRIC, One Road, etc. are sincere resistance to the Globalists."
Something I've pondered for quite some time now. Makes one think all this nonsense is just
smoke and mirrors to confuse the peons, as the global elites fleece the sheep.
17, and 24 have hit the nail on the head.. the whole idea of revealing hidden news is to
implement a strategy designed to weaken the power of the masses in favor of the leaders of
the masses. Divide and conquer is a method that implements that strategy. When controversial
subject matter is discussed it weakens consensus. DQ applied to any controversial subject,
weakens the consensus power of the mass(es) much like a second person on one side of a
see-saw weakens the power of the first person to decide for him(her)self which end is up.
Worse, when the two persons counter balance the see-saw, a third person can jump to the
middle and easily control which of the first two are in the air and on the ground. Deep in
the strategy is emotion. A controversial subject matter elicits emotions at various levels on
both sides of controversy.
example: 1000 people.. 500 believe in gun control; 500 believe in open gun society.How did
that happen? What news article could arouse desired or planned response? Let us say in each
of the 500 groups; 30 persons (60 in all) are highly emotionally aroused by the issue; so
target them, they will fight to death those who profess their opposite thought or belief and
they will receive the support of the 430 on their side to start with. Now you have it.
90% of the news is about that.. D&C has been a propaganda technology since Rome days, but
beginning around 1860, using propaganda to effect D&C technology was developed into a
profession and the governments made that technology into a weapon of war.
I believe if the humanity of the world cannot find leadership to solve problems, then the
masses are going to have to find ways to solve problems in spite of the nation states and the
technology used by the nation states to prevent mass solutions that work. Every human being
alive needs to understand the importance of contributing to the needs of the masses.
There's also this: https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/3846671.html
Ukrainian politician Daniel Papiev said on a Ukrainian talk show that, although a census
hasn't been held for many years, the most "optimistic" number is that the population of
Ukraine has declined to 32 million. When the USSR collapsed, Ukraine's population was 52
million, and before Maidan, it was a little over 45 million. Now it's 32. A loss of nearly 20
million people (2 million due to Crimea joining Russia) is an "impressive" result by any
measure (even during the 1932-33 famine years, the Ukrainian population actually rose).
Ukrainian politicians regularly state that at current levels of growth, it will take until
the 2030s to reach "pre-Maidan" levels. If the population keeps declining like this, even
that looks optimistic. It seems that there must be a lot more Ukrainians working in the
shadow economy both in the EU and in Russia than is officially known about.
Slightly off-topic and trivial, but Tatyana Montyan said that Tymoshenko always used other
people's money, and never shared it with anyone. I assume you've seen this clip from 2014 but
if not you'll probably find it entertaining, since you have an interest in the players.
Montoyan mentions Yulya around the 10:00 mark: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DAtarbgbfHc
10:07 Yulia has always been very greedy and has never worked with her own money, and the
people knew that the Party of Regions guys at least pay their bills,
10:17 They will pay with some government positions, bribes, some land and so on, Yulya
could only say: "Thank you very much!"
10:27 And that's why I know that all BYT party structures in Cherkassy worked for the
Party of Regions. I think around the country it's the same.
10:38 She was winning in the polls in fact, but she lost, of course, because she didn't
want to invest in protecting her results
10:48 So now the situation will be the same. She has nothing. She has always been
working with other's resources.
The whole clip is funny. Montoyan says that Poroshenko is a thief and the son of a thief,
and that she met Tymoshenko who was at the time just a small-time thief.
More seriously, I owe this interview for the understanding that Ukraine is completely run
by thieves for thieves. Once one knows that, all mysteries of statecraft are solved. There
truly is no statecraft. Event the wars against the Donbass are to allocate war funds to be
stolen.
@Daniel 8, Minor correction the U.S.-backed Georgian attack on Ossetia was in 2008. That was
a Condoleezza Rice-arranged action, which turned into a debacle.
Here's one decent summary from Dec 2008: (A bit biased towards standard western
narrative, but better than a lot of the "Russia just attacked Georgia!" claims by CBS etc.)
"The tense but relatively stable situation blew up late in the evening of August 7, when on
the order of president Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's army swept into South Ossetia,
leveling much of Tskhinvali and surrounding villages and sending some 30,000 refugees
fleeing north into Russia. Within hours, Russia's de facto czar Vladimir Putin
counterattacked -- some say he'd set a trap -- and by the end of that long weekend the
Georgians were in panicked retreat. The Russian army then pushed straight through South
Ossetia and deep into Georgia proper, halting less than an hour's drive from Saakashvili's
luxurious palace."
American military advisers had been training and supplying Georgian troops up to a few
days before the invasion. There were at least 100 in the country, so you can guess that
Saakashvili wouldn't have acted without the green light from the U.S. Part of the whole
'encircle Russia' strategy developed after it became clear Putin wouldn't let western
interests take control of Russian natural resources. In any case, it's fairly hard to see how
the Russian government would ever work with Saakashvili after that.
Everyone in the current Ukrainian government seems half-crazy at least, a bunch of
oligarchs and mafia dons with all the usual squabbles over power and prestige.
This is a walk down memory lane, I was watching this pretty closely at the time (I have a
grandmother whose family is from Ossetia, so it was of personal interest). It was all a
pretty crude brutal power play over pipeline control, with reckless disregard for the
consequences - another Outlaw US Empire stunt. The coordinated timing to the Beijing Olympics
(@40 Hague) is strange - deliberate?
One factor I was unaware of at the time is the explosion on the BTC
pipeline in Turkey (the BTC runs from the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan, Georgia and
Turkey to the Mediterranean) on August 5, 2008. Originally Kurdish separatists claimed credit
although nobody seems to be sure. Regardless, the main U.S. interest in Eastern Europe is
controlling the pipeline routes to Europe. In Central Asia, the game is controlling oilfield
production, while not allowing exports through Iran or Russia.
@47 mischi the Israeli involvement likely revolved around this Israeli proposal from
2006:
[Israeli] National Infrastructures Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer told the Ambassador on
June 21 that he recently returned from an oil and gas conference in Azerbaijan, where he
met with government officials and discussed extending the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC)
pipeline to Israel. According to Ben-Eliezer, the pipeline is currently expected to run 220
km. from Azerbaijan to Georgia and Turkey. Adding Israel would extend the pipeline an
additional 400 km., and Azerbaijan could subsequently use the Ashkelon-Eilat pipeline to
transmit oil to the Red Sea for sale to customers in East Asia.
As part of this, the U.S. suggested joint military drills with Turkey, Israel and
Georgia:
TGS will consider future regional Special Operations Forces (SOF) exercises in cooperation
with Israel, Georgia, and Azerbaijan. (2007) . . .
. . . [Nasrallah] was also quoted as saying that Israel exported failed generals to
train the Georgian army, referring to Brig. Gen. (res.) Gal Hirsch, who resigned his
command after the Second Lebanon War
There are also many credible reports of Georgia using cluster munitions manufactured by
Israel against Ossetia civilians and Russian forces; Human Rights Watch claimed Russia used
cluster munitions as well; Georgia admitted to it but Russia denied using them. HRW often
does not come across as impartial in these conflicts.
Georgia used the M85 submunition during the conflict, fired from GRADLAR rockets, which
were purchased from Israel. . . it was also likely that the Georgians felt so overwhelmed
by the Russian attack, they merely fired off everything they had with little thought to
strike distance or consequences on the civilian population.
The overall agenda here has been the US State Department & Pentagon-coordinated plan
to help Exxon and Chevron export oil from their leases in Kazakhstan (Israel being a bit
player looking to secure oil supplies and transit fees):
Feb 2010: We are focused on helping the Kazakhstanis implement the Kazakhstan-Caspian
Transportation System (KCTS), which envisions a virtual pipeline of tankers transporting
large volumes of crude from Kazakhstan's Caspian coast to Baku, from where it will flow
onward to market through Georgia, including through the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline.
Kill and slaughter for oil profits, same old game.
The agenda of Human Rights Watch (which was founded as Helsinki Watch)frequently aligns
with that of the US State Dept., ignoring or downplaying crimes of friends of the US and
highlighting alleged crimes of US enemies.
It is not. And the reason that was not mentioned by Daniel Larison is neo-McCarthyism which is
in full swing supported by both parties. It really poisoned the well for a long, long time. actually on both sides as the
level of anti-Americanism in Russian is also on the upswing. Which make work of US diplomats and businessmen more difficult.
The fear that at one point Russia will show the US companies the door are quite widespread. Especially with unpredictability about
who will become President Putin successor: a neoliberal like Medvedev or a nationalist like Ragozin. .
Notable quotes:
"... Trump can't make a move without being seen as a bag man for Putin. ..."
"... If our government officials fail to recognize the U.S. role in creating bad relations between Washington and Moscow, they are bound to keep repeating the mistakes that their predecessors made. ..."
"... Given how US can and has undermined countries with its ability to control the flow of US dollars, China, Russia, etc are creating the mechanisms to move away from that. With the recent announcements by Trump, concerning Jerusalem and Yemen, Saudi Arabia might be persuaded to use other currencies when selling its oil, beside US dollar. ..."
Trump can't make a move without being seen as a bag man for Putin.
Thanks to the many questionable contacts between some members of the Trump campaign and
Russian officials, the administration has been unable to pursue any constructive engagement
with Moscow without triggering accusations of doing Russia's bidding. The administration's
response to this predicament has usually been to echo the most conventional hawkish views on
disputed issues and make no concerted effort to repair frayed ties with the Russian
government.
Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently delivered a speech at the Wilson Center in which
he described Russia primarily in terms of the threat that it posed to Europe. Even as he stated
that the U.S. desires a "productive new relationship" with Moscow, he framed previous
breakdowns in relations as being purely the result of Russian "aggression." In Tillerson's
oversimplified telling, "both attempts by the prior administration to reset the Russia and
U.S.-Europe relationships have been followed by Russia invading its neighbor." But that is not
quite how things unfolded.
The 2008 war to which Tillerson refers was a product of the Georgian government's
recklessness, its overconfidence in Western promises, and the profoundly misguided allied
pledge at the Bucharest NATO summit that Ukraine and Georgia would one day become members of
the alliance. Whatever "reset" George W. Bush attempted early in his first term had long since
given way to repeatedly antagonizing Moscow by withdrawing from the ABM Treaty, launching the
Iraq war, promoting missile defense in central Europe, NATO expansion in eastern Europe, and
U.S. support for the so-called "color" revolutions in the former Soviet Union.
The Obama-era "reset" achieved some initial successes, but this soon stalled out and was
replaced by resentment over the passage of the Magnitsky Act and the bait-and-switch
intervention for regime change in Libya that Russia had been persuaded not to oppose.
Confrontation over the civil war in Syria also contributed significantly to the souring of
U.S.-Russian relations. By the time the political crisis in Ukraine erupted in 2014, the
hopeful atmosphere created by the "reset" was long gone, and the U.S. and allied response to
that crisis contributed to further deterioration. If our government officials fail to recognize
the U.S. role in creating bad relations between Washington and Moscow, they are bound to keep
repeating the mistakes that their predecessors made.
... ... ...
cornel lencar says: December 6, 2017 at 11:18 pm
Daniel,
I am a close follower of your blog and admire your analyses, but I always found that there is an important component that
you never address that is core to the strategic interests of the U.S. and that for Russia, or other major powers, have lately
recognized explicitly and acting against, explicitly. This is the issue of U.S. dollar, or how some people call it, the
petrodollar.
Given how US can and has undermined countries with its ability to control the flow of US dollars, China, Russia, etc
are creating the mechanisms to move away from that. With the recent announcements by Trump, concerning Jerusalem and Yemen,
Saudi Arabia might be persuaded to use other currencies when selling its oil, beside US dollar.
Such issues are of extreme strategic significance, and you never seem to touch on them.
Likbez, December 7, 2017 at 02:58 pm
Another factor worth mentioning is neo-McCarthyism which is now in full swing. That "poisoned the well"
probably for a long, long time.
And it did nothing or very little to unite the country against this new official enemy.
Russiagate mostly serves internal political kitchen, specifically a color revolution against Trump
administration launched by globalists (for some unknown to me reasons, as Trump manage to betray a good part of his election
promises in the first three months of his presidency).
Daniel Larison is senior editor at The American Conservative.
This is two years old article. Not much changed... Comments sound as written yesterday. Check it out !
The key incentive to Iran deal is using Iran as a Trojan horse against Russia in oil market -- the force which helps to keep oil prices low, benefitting
the USA and other G7 members and hurting Russia and other oil-producing nations. Iran might also serve as a replacement market for EU
goods as Russian market is partially lost. Due to sanctions EU now lost (and probably irrevocably) Russian market for food, and have difficulties in maintaining their share in other
sectors (cars, machinery) as Asian tigers come in.
Notable quotes:
"... The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions AIPAC spent lobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic. ..."
"... Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war: blaming Iran for 9/11 and saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans. ..."
"... The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil robinson who commands ducks apparently. ..."
"... Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US. After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection (enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development). ..."
"... Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble. ..."
"... AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is. ..."
"... Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the region ..."
"... With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland) was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States, are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community. ..."
"... The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to support a government whose policies they find odious. ..."
"... As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent. ..."
"... AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. ..."
"... Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking support. ..."
"... No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him. ..."
"... It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese. Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry. ..."
"... The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required for an Iranian nuclear weapons program. What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer. ..."
"... Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives at risk. ..."
"... And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally. ..."
"... I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries, conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing. ..."
"... Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one. ..."
"... Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal. ..."
"... American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites. ..."
"... The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages "an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power." ..."
"... AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous and an enemy of the American people. ..."
The waning clout stems from the lobby siding with the revanchist Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, whose Iran strategy
since the 2012 US presidential campaign has been to unabashedly side with Republican hawks. AIPAC's alignment with the position effectively
caused the group to marginalize itself; the GOP is now the only place where AIPAC can today find lockstep support. The tens of millions
AIPAC spentlobbying against the deal were unable to obscure this dynamic.
We may not look back at this as a sea change – some Senate Democrats who held firm against opposition to the deal are working
with AIPAC to pass subsequent legislation that contains poison pills designed to kill it – but rather as a rising tide eroding the
once sturdy bipartisan pro-Israeli government consensus on Capitol Hill. Some relationships have been frayed; previously stalwart
allies of the Israel's interests, such as Vice President Joe Biden, have reportedly said the Iran deal fight soured them on AIPAC.
Even with the boundaries of its abilities on display, however, AIPAC will continue its efforts. "We urge those who have blocked
a vote today to reconsider," the group said in a spin-heavy
statement casting a pretty objective defeat as victory with the headline, "Bipartisan Senate Majority Rejects Iran Nuclear Deal."
The group's allies in the Senate Republican Party have already promised to rehash the procedural vote next week, and its lobbyists
are still rallying for support in the House. But the Senate's refusal to halt US support for the deal means that Senate Democrats
are unlikely to reconsider, especially after witnessing Thursday's Republican hijinx in the House. These ploys look like little more
than efforts to embarrass Obama into needing to cast a veto.
If Republicans' rhetoric leading up to to their flop in the Senate – Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina took to the
floor during the debate and pulled out an old trick from the run-up to the Iraq war:
blaming Iran for 9/11 and
saying a failure to act would result in a worse attack – is any indication, even Democrats like the pro-Israel hawk Chuck Schumer
will find it untenable to sidle up to AIPAC and the Republicans.
Opponents of the deal want to say the Democrats played politics instead of evaluating the deal honestly. That charge is ironic,
to say the least, since most experts agree the nuclear deal is sound and the best agreement diplomacy could achieve. But there were
politics at play: rather than siding with Obama, Congressional Democrats lined up against the Republican/Netanyahu alliance. The
adamance of AIPAC ended up working against its stated interests.
Groups like AIPAC will go on touting their bipartisan bona fides without considering that their adoption of Netanyahu's own partisanship
doomed them to a partisan result. Meanwhile, the ensuing fight, which will no doubt bring more of the legislative chaos we saw this
week, won't be a cakewalk, so to speak, but will put the lie to AIPAC's claims it has a bipartisan consensus behind it. Despite their
best efforts, Obama won't be the one embarrassed by the scrambling on the horizon.
TiredOldDog 13 Sep 2015 21:47
a foreign country whose still hell bent on committing war crimes
I guess this may mean Israel. If it does, how about we compare Assad's Syria, Iran and Israel. How many war crimes per day
in the last 4 years and, maybe, some forecasts. Otherwise it's the usual gratuitous use of bad words at Israel. It has a purpose.
To denigrate and dehumanize Israel or, at least, Zionism.
ID7612455 13 Sep 2015 18:04
The problem with the right in the USA is that they offer no alternatives, nothing, nada and zilch they have become the
opposition party of opposition. They rely on talking point memes and fear, and it has become the party of extremism and simplicity
offering low hanging fruit and red meat this was on perfect display at their anti Iran deal rally, palin, trump, beck and phil
robinson who commands ducks apparently.
winemaster2 13 Sep 2015 17:01
Put a Brush Mustache on the control freak, greed creed, Nentanhayu the SOB not only looks like but has the same mentality as
Hitler and his Nazism crap.
Martin Hutton -> mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 23:50
I wondered when someone was going to bring up that "forgotten" fact. Is it any wonder the Iranians don't trust the US.
After the US's spying exploits during the Iraqi WMD inspections, why are you surprised that Iran asks for 24 days notice of inspection
(enough time to clear out conventional weapons development but not enough to remove evidence of nuclear weapons development).
mantishrimp 12 Sep 2015 20:51
Most Americans don't know the CIA overthrew the Iranian government in 1953 and installed the Shaw. Most Republicans know
that most Americans will believe what Fox news tells them. Republicans live in an alternate universe where there is no climate
change, mammon is worshiped and wisdom is rejected hatred is accepted negotiation is replaced by perpetual warfare. Now most Americans
are tired of stupid leadership and the Republicans are in big trouble.
ByThePeople -> Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 20:27
Is pitiful how for months and months, certain individuals blathered on and on and on when it was fairly clear from the get
go that this was a done deal and no one was about cater to the war criminal. I suppose it was good for them, sucking every last
dime they could out of the AICPA & Co. while they acted like there was 'a chance'. Nope, only chance is that at the end of the
day, a politician is a politician and he'll suck you dry as long as you let 'em.
What a pleasure it is to see the United States Congress finally not pimp themselves out completely to a foreign country whose
still hell bent on committing war crimes. A once off I suppose, but it's one small step for Americans.
ByThePeople 12 Sep 2015 20:15
AIPAC - Eventually everything is seen for what is truly is.
ambushinthenight -> Greg Zeglen 12 Sep 2015 18:18
Seems that it makes a lot of sense to most everyone else in the world, it is now at the point where it really makes no difference
whether the U.S. ratifies the deal or not. Israel is opposed because they wish to maintain their nuclear weapons monopoly in the
region. Politicians here object for one of two reasons. They are Israeli first and foremost not American or for political expediency
and a chance to try undo another of this President's achievements. Been a futile effort so far I'd say.
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 12 Sep 2015 16:42
With the threat you describe from Israel it seems only sensible for Iran to develop nuclear weapons - if my was country (Scotland)
was in Iran's place and what you said is true i would only support politicians who promised fast and large scale production of
atomic weapons to counter the clear threat to my nation.
nardone -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 14:12
Netanyahu loves to play the victim, but he is the primary cause that Jews worldwide, but especially in the United States,
are rethinking the idea of "Israel." I know very few people who willingly identify with a strident right wing government comprised
of rabid nationalists, religious fundamentalists, and a violent, almost apocalyptic settler community.
The Israeli electorate has indicated which path it wishes to travel, but that does not obligate Jews throughout the world to
support a government whose policies they find odious.
Greg Zeglen -> Glenn Gang 12 Sep 2015 13:51
good point which is found almost nowhere else...it is still necessary to understand that the whole line of diplomacy regarding
the west on the part of Iran has been for generations one of deceit...and people are intensely jealous of what they hold dear
- especially safety and liberty with in their country....
EarthyByNature -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 13:45
I do trust your on salary with a decent benefits package with the Israeli government or one of it's slavish US lobbyists. Let's
face it, got to be hard work pouring out such hateful drivel.
BrianGriffin -> imipak 12 Sep 2015 12:53
The USA took about six years to build a bomb from scratch. The UK took almost six years to build a bomb. Russia was able to
build a bomb in only four years (1945-1949). France took four years to build a bomb. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/France_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
As part of this deal the US and allies should guarantee Iran protection against Israeli aggression. Otherwise, considering
Israel's threats, Iran is well justified in seeking a nuclear deterrent.
BrianGriffin -> HauptmannGurski 12 Sep 2015 12:35
"Europe needs business desperately."
Sieggy 12 Sep 2015 12:32
In other words, once again, Obama out-played and out-thought both the GOP and AIPAC. He was playing multidimensional chess
while they were playing checkers. The democrats kept their party discipline while the republicans ran around like a schoolyard
full of sugared-up children. This is what happens when you have grownups competing with adolescents. The republican party, to
put it very bluntly, can't get it together long enough to whistle 'Yankee Doodle Dandy' in unison.
They lost. Again. And worse than being losers, they're sore, whining, sniveling, blubbering losers. Even when they've been
spanked - hard - they swear it's not over and they're gonna get even, just you wait and see! Get over it. They lost - badly -
and the simple fact that their party is coming apart at the seams before our very eyes means they're going to be losing a lot
more, too.
AIPAC's defeat shows that their grip on the testicles of congress has been broken. All the way around, a glorious victory for
Obama, and an ignominious defeat for the republicans. And most especially, Israel. Their primary goal was to keep Iran isolated
and economically weak. They knew full well that the Iranians hadn't had a nuclear program since 2003, but Netanhayu needed an
existential threat to Israel in order to justify his grip on power. All of this charade has bee at the instigation of and directed
by Israel. And they lost They were beaten by that hated schwartze and the liberals that Israel normally counts on for unthinking
support.
Their worst loss, however, was losing the support of the American jews. Older, orthodox jews are Israel-firsters. The younger,
less observant jews are Americans first. Netanhayu's behavior has driven a wedge between the US and Israel that is only going
to deepen over time. And on top of that, Iran is re-entering the community of nations, and soon their economy will dominate the
region. Bibi overplayed his hand very, very stupidly, and the real price that Israel will pay for his bungling will unfold over
the next few decades.
BrianGriffin -> TiredOldDog 12 Sep 2015 12:18
"The Constitution provides that the president 'shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make
Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur'"
Hardly a done deal. If Obama releases funds to Iran he probably would be committing an impeachable crime under US law. Even
many Democrats would vote to impeach Obama for providing billions to a sworn enemy of Israel.
Glenn Gang -> Bruce Bahmani 12 Sep 2015 12:07
"...institutionally Iranclad(sic) HATRED towards the west..." Since you like all-caps so much, try this: "B.S."
The American propel(sic) actually figured out something else---that hardline haters like yourself are desperate to keep the
cycle of Islamophobic mistrust and suspicion alive, and blind themselves to the fact that the rest of us have left you behind.
FACT: More than half of the population of Iran today was NOT EVEN BORN when radical students captured the U.S. Embassy in Teheran
in 1979.
People like you, Bruce, conveniently ignore the fact that Ahmedinejad and his hardline followers were voted out of power in
2013, and that Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei further marginalized them by allowing the election of new President Hassan Rouhani
to stand, though he was and is an outspoken reformer advocating rapprochement with the west. While his outward rhetoric still
has stern warnings about anticipated treachery by the 'Great Satan', Khamenei has allowed the Vienna agreement to go forward,
and shows no sign of interfering with its implementation.
He is an old man, but he is neither stupid nor senile, and has clearly seen the crippling effects the international sanctions
have had on his country and his people. Haters like you, Bruce, will insist that he ALWAYS has evil motives, just as Iranian hardliners
(like Ahmedinejad) will ALWAYS believe that the U.S. has sinister motives and cannot EVER be trusted to uphold our end of any
agreement. You ascribe HATRED in all caps to Iran, the whole country, while not acknowledging your own simmering hatred.
People like you will always find a 'boogeyman,' someone else to blame for your problems, real or imagined. You should get some
help.
beenheretoolong 12 Sep 2015 10:57
No doubt Netanyahu will raise the level of his anger; he just can't accept that a United States president would do anything
on which Israel hadn't stamped its imprimatur. It gets tiresome listening to him.
geneob 12 Sep 2015 10:12
It is this deal that feeds the military industrial complex. We've already heard Kerry give Israel and Saudi Arabia assurances
of more weapons. And that $150 billion released to Iran? A healthy portion will be spent for arms..American, Russian, Chinese.
Most of the commenters have this completely backwards. This deal means a bonanza for the arms industry.
Jack Hughes 12 Sep 2015 08:38
The Iran nuclear agreement accomplishes the US policy goal of preventing the creation of the fissionable material required
for an Iranian nuclear weapons program.
What the agreement does not do is eliminate Iran as a regional military and economic power, as the Israelis and Saudis -- who
have invested hundreds of millions of dollars to lobby American politicians and brainwash American TV viewers -- would prefer.
To reject the agreement is to accept the status quo, which is unacceptable, leaving an immediate and unprovoked American-led
bombing campaign as the only other option.
Rejection equals war. It's not surprising that the same crowd most stridently demanding rejection of the agreement advocated
the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq. These homicidal fools never learn, or don't care as long as it's not their lives
at risk.
American politicians opposed to the agreement are serving their short-term partisan political interests and, under America's
system of legalized bribery, their Israeli and Saudi paymasters -- not America's long-term policy interests.
ID293404 -> Jeremiah2000 12 Sep 2015 05:01
And how did the Republicans' foreign policy work out? Reagan created and financed Al Qaeda. Then Bush II invades Iraq with
promises the Iraqis will welcome us with flowers (!), the war will be over in a few weeks and pay for itself, and the middle east
will have a nascent democracy (Iraq) that will be a grateful US ally.
He then has pictures taken of himself in a jet pilot's uniform on a US aircraft carrier with a huge sign saying Mission Accomplished.
He attacks Afghanistan to capture Osama, lets him get away, and then attacks Iraq instead, which had nothing to do with 9/11 and
no ties with Al Qaeda.
So then we have two interminable wars going on, thanks to brilliant Republican foreign policy, and spend gazillions of dollars
while creating a mess that may never be straightened out. Never mind all the friends we won in the middle east and the enhanced
reputation of our country through torture, the use of mercenaries, and the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of
civilians. Yeah, we really need those bright Republicans running the show over in the Middle East!
HauptmannGurski -> lazman 12 Sep 2015 02:31
That is a very difficult point to understand, just look at this sentence "not understanding the fact in international affairs
that to disrespect an American president is to disrespect Americans" ... too much emperor thinking for me. We have this conversation
with regard to Putin everywhere now, so we disrespect all 143 million Russians? There's not a lot of disrespect around for Japanese
PM Abe and Chinese Xi - does this now mean we respect them and all Japanese and Chinese? Election campaigns create such enormous
personality cults that people seem to lose perspective.
On the Iran deal, if the US had dropped out of it it would have caused quite a rift because many countries would have just
done what they wanted anyway. The international Atomic Energy Organisation or what it is would have done their inspections. Siemens
would have sold medical machines. Countries would grow up as it were. But as cooperation is always better than confrontation it
is nice the US have stayed in the agreement that was apparently 10 years in the making. It couldn't have gone on like that. With
Europe needing gazillions to finance Greece, Ukraine, and millions of refugees (the next waves will roll on with the next spring
and summer from April), Europe needs business desparately. Israel was happy to buy oil through Marc Rich under sanctions, now
it's Europe's turn to snatch some business.
imipak -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 21:56
Iran lacks weapons-grade uranium and the means to produce it. Iran has made no efforts towards nuclear weapons technology for
over a decade. Iran is a signatory of the NPT and is entitled to the rights enshrined therein. If Israel launches a nuclear war
against Iran over Iran having a medical reactor (needed to produce isotopes for medicine, isotopes America can barely produce
enough of for itself) that poses no security threat to anyone, then Israel will have transgressed so many international laws that
if it survives the radioactive fallout (unlikely), it won't survive the political fallout.
It is a crime of the highest order to use weapons of mass destruction (although that didn't stop the Israelis using them against
Palestinian civilians) and pre-emtive self-defence is why most believe Bush and Blair should be on trial at the ICJ, or (given
the severity of their crimes) Nuremberg.
Israel's right to self-defense is questionable, I'm not sure any such right exists for anyone, but even allowing for it, Israel
has no right to wage unprovoked war on another nation on the grounds of a potential threat discovered through divination using
tea leaves.
imipak -> Jeremiah2000 11 Sep 2015 21:43
Iran's sponsorship of terrorism is of no concern. Such acts do not determine its competency to handle nuclear material at the
5% level (which you can find naturally). There are only three questions that matter - can Iran produce the 90-95% purity needed
to build a bomb (no), can Iran produce such purity clandestinely (no), and can Iran use its nuclear technology to threaten Israel
(no).
Israel also supports international terrorism, has used chemical weapons against civilians, has directly indulged in terrorism,
actually has nuclear weapons and is paranoid enough that it may use them against other nations without cause.
I respect Israel's right to exist and the intelligence of most Israelis. But I neither respect nor tolerate unreasoned fear
nor delusions of Godhood.
imipak -> commish 11 Sep 2015 21:33
I've seen Iranian statements playing internal politics, but I have never seen any actual Iranian threats. I've seen plenty
about Israel assassinating people in other countries, using incendiaries and chemical weapons against civilians in other countries,
conducting illegal kidnappings overseas, using terrorism as a weapon of war, developing nuclear weapons illegally, ethnically
cleansing illegally occupied territories, that sort of thing.
Until such time as Israel implements the Oslo Accords, withdraws to its internationally recognized boundary and provides the
International Court of Justice a full accounting of state-enacted and state-sponsored terrorism, it gets no claims on sainthood
and gets no free rides.
Iran has its own crimes to answer, but directly threatening Israel in words or deeds has not been one of them within this past
decade. Its actual crimes are substantial and cannot be ignored, but it is guilty only of those and not fictional works claimed
by psychotic paranoid ultra-nationalists.
imipak -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 21:18
Domestic politics. Of no real consequence, it's just a way of controlling a populace through fear and a never-ending pseudo-war.
It's how Iran actually feels that is important.
For the last decade, they've backed off any nuclear weapons research and you can't make a bomb with centrifuges that can only
manage 20% enriched uranium. You need something like 90% enrichment, which requires centrifuges many, many times more advanced.
It'd be hard to smuggle something like that in and the Iranians lack the skills, technology and science to make them.
Iran's conventional forces are busy fighting ISIS. What they do afterwards is a concern, but Israel has a sizable military
presence on the Golan Heights. The most likely outcome is for Iran to install puppet regimes (or directly control) Syria and ISIS'
caliphate.
I could see those two regions plus Iraq being fully absorbed into Iran, that would make some sense given the new geopolitical
situation. But that would tie up Iran for decades. Which would not be a bad thing and America would be better off encouraging
it rather than sabre-rattling.
(These are areas that contribute a lot to global warming and political instability elsewhere. Merging the lot and encouraging
nuclear energy will do a lot for the planet. The inherent instability of large empires will reduce mischief-making elsewhere to
more acceptable levels - they'll be too busy. It's idle hands that you need to be scared of.)
Israelis worry too much. If they spent less time fretting and more time developing, they'd be impervious to any natural or
unnatural threat by now. Their teaching of Roman history needs work, but basically Israel has a combined intellect vastly superior
to that of any nearby nation.
That matters. If you throw away fear and focus only on problems, you can stop and even defeat armies and empires vastly greater
than your own. History is replete with examples, so is the mythologicized history of the Israeli people. Israel's fear is Israel's
only threat.
mostfree 11 Sep 2015 21:10
Warmongers on all sides would had loved another round of fear and hysteria. Those dark military industrial complexes on all
sides are dissipating in the face of the high rising light of peace for now . Please let it shine.
bishoppeter4 11 Sep 2015 20:09
The rabid Republicans working for a foreign power against the interest of the United States -- US citizens will know just what
to do.
"Netanyahu has no right to dictate what the US does."
But he has every right to point out how Obama is a weak fool. How's Obama's red line working in Syria? How is his toppling
of Qadaffi in Libya working? How about his completely inept dealings with Egypt, throwing support behind the Muslim Brotherhood
leaders? The leftists cheer Obama's weakening of American influence abroad. But they don't talk much about its replacement with
Russian and Chinese influence.
Russian build-up in Syria part of secret deal with Iran's Quds Force leader. Obama and Kerry are sending a strongly
worded message.
Susan Dechancey -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 19:05
Incredible to see someone prefer war to diplomacy - guess you are an armchair General not a real one.
Susan Dechancey -> commish 11 Sep 2015 19:04
Except all its neighbours ... not only threatened but entered military conflict and stole land ... murdered Iranian Scientists
but apart from that just a kitten
Susan Dechancey -> moishe 11 Sep 2015 19:00
Israel has nukes so why are they afraid ?? Iran will never use nukes against Israel and even Mossad told nuttyyahoo sabre rattling
Susan Dechancey 11 Sep 2015 18:57
Iran is not a made-up country like Iraq it is as old as Greece. If the Iraq war was sold as pushover and failed miserably
then an Iran war would be unthinkable. War can be started in an instant diplomacy take time. UK, France, Germany & EU all agree
its an acceptable alternative to war. So as these countries hardly ever agree it is clear the deal is a good one.
To be honest the USA can do what it likes now .. UK has set up an embassy - trade missions are landing Tehran from Europe.
So if Israel and US congress want war - they will be alone and maybe if US keeps up the Nuttyahoo rhetoric European firms can
win contracts to help us pay for the last US regime change Iraq / Isis / Refugees...
lswingly -> commish 11 Sep 2015 16:58
Rank and file Americans don't even know what the Iran deal is. And can't be bothered to actually find out. They just listen
to sound bites from politicians the loudest of whom have been the wildly partisan republicans claiming that it gives Iran a green
light to a nuclear weapon. Not to mention those "less safe" polls are completely loaded. Certain buzz words will always produce
negative results. If you associate something positive "feeling safe" or "in favor of" anything that Iran signs off on it comes
across as indirectly supporting Iran and skews the results of the poll. "Iran" has been so strongly associated with evil and negative
all you have to do is insert it into a sentence to make people feel negatively about the entire sentence. In order to get true
data on the deal you would have to poll people on the individual clauses the deal.
It's no different from how when you run a poll on who's in favor "Obamacare" the results will be majority negative. But
if you poll on whether you are in favor of "The Affordable Care Act" most people are in favor of it and if you break it down and
poll on the individual planks of "Obamacare" people overwhelming approve of the things that "Obamacare does". The disapproval
is based on the fact that Republican's have successfully turned "Obamacare" into a pejorative and has almost no reflection of
people feelings on actual policy.
To illustrate how meaningless those poll numbers are a Jewish poll (supposedly the people who have the most to lose if this
deal is bad) found that a narrow majority of Jews approve of the deal. You're numbers are essentially meaningless.
The alternative to this plan is essentially war if not now, in the very near future, according to almost all non-partisan policy
wonks. Go run a poll on whether we should go to war with Iran and see how that turns out. Last time we destabilized the region
we removed a secular dictator who was enemies with Al Queda and created a power vacuum that led to increased religious extremism
and the rise of Isis. You want to double down on that strategy?
MadManMark -> whateverworks4u 11 Sep 2015 16:34
You need to reread this article. It's exactly this attitude of yours (and AIPAC and Netanyahu) that this deal is not 100% perfect,
but then subsequently failed to suggest ANY way to get something better -- other than war, which I'm sorry most people don't want
another Republican "preemptive" war -- caused a lot people originally uncertain about this deal (like me) to conclude there may
not be a better alternative. Again, read the article: What you think about me, I now think about deal critics like you ("It seems
people will endorse anything to justify their political views.)
USfan 11 Sep 2015 15:34
American Jews are facing one of the most interesting choices of recent US history. The Republican Party, which is pissing
into a stiff wind of unfavorable demographics, seems to have decided it can even the playing field by peeling Jews away from the
Democrats with promises to do whatever Israel wants. So we have the very strange (but quite real) prospect of Jews increasingly
throwing in their lot with the party of Christian extremists whose ranks also include violent antiSemites.
Interesting times. We'll see how this plays out. My family is Jewish and I have not been shy in telling them that alliances
with the GOP for short-term gains for Israel is not a wise policy. The GOP establishment are not antiSemtic but the base often
is, and if Trump's candidacy shows anything it's that the base is in control of the Republicans.
But we'll see.
niyiakinlabu 11 Sep 2015 15:29
Central question: how come nobody talks about Israel's nukes?
hello1678 -> BrianGriffin 11 Sep 2015 14:02
Iran will not accept being forced into dependence on outside powers. We may dislike their government but they have as much
right as anyone else to enrich their own fuel.
JackHep 11 Sep 2015 13:30
Netanyahu is an example of all that is bad about the Israeli political, hence military industrial, establishment. Why Cameron's
government allowed him on British soil is beyond belief. Surely the PM's treatment of other "hate preachers" would not have been
lost on Netanyahu? Sadly our PM seems to miss the point with Israel.
The American Warmonger Establishment (that now fully entrenched "Military Industrial Complex" against which no more keen
observer than President Dwight Eisenhower warned us), is rip-shit over the Iran Agreement. WHAT? We can't Do More War? That will
be terrible for further increasing our obscene 1-percent wealth. Let's side with Israeli wingnut Netanyahu, who cynically leverages
"an eye for an eye for an eye for an eye" to hold his "Power."
And let's be treasonous against the United States by trying to undermine U.S. Foreign Policy FOR OUR OWN PROFIT. We are LONG
overdue for serious jail time for these sociopaths, who already have our country "brainwashed" into 53% of our budget going to
the War Profiteers and to pretending to be a 19th century Neo-Colonial Power -- in an Endless State of Eternal War. These people
are INSANE. Time to simply say so.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:58
At the rally to end the Iran deal in the Capitol on Wednesday, one of the AIPAC worshipping attendees had this to say to Jim
Newell of Slate:
""Obama is a black, Jew-hating, jihadist putting America and Israel and the rest of the planet in grave danger," said Bob
Kunst of Miami. Kunst-pairing a Hillary Clinton rubber mask with a blue T-shirt reading "INFIDEL"-was holding one sign that
accused Obama, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry of "Fulfilling Hitler's Dreams" and another that queried, "DIDN'T WE LEARN ANYTHING
FROM 1938?"
His only reassurance was that, when Iran launches its attack on the mainland, it'll be stopped quickly by America's heavily
armed citizenry."
That is indicative of the mindset of those opposed to the agreement.
Boredwiththeusa 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC is a dangerous anti-american organization, and a real and extant threat to the sovereignty of the U.S. Any elected
official acting in concert with AIPAC is colluding with a foreign government to harm the U.S. and should be considered treasonous
and an enemy of the American people.
tunejunky 11 Sep 2015 12:47
AIPAC, its constituent republicans, and the government of Israel all made the same mistake in a common episode of hubris. by
not understanding the American public, war, and without the deference shown from a proxy to its hegemon, Israel's right wing has
flown the Israeli cause into a wall. not understanding the fact in international affairs that to disrespect an American president
is to disrespect Americans, the Israeli government acted as a spoiled first-born - while to American eyes it was a greedy, ungrateful
ward foisted upon barely willing hands. it presumed far too much and is receiving the much deserved rebuke.
impartial12 11 Sep 2015 12:37
This deal is the best thing that happened in the region in a while. We tried war and death. It didn't work out. Why not try
this?
This article is two years old, but still sounds current. The only difference now is that the conflict between Western nationalists and
neoliberal central government of President Poroshenko became more acute. Nationalists do not understand that "The Moor has done his duty, Moor can go" and neoliberal government of Poroshenko do not need
(and actually is afraid of) them.
"... Even in Kiev they view Western Ukrainians as strangers. ..."
"... So they didn't have any hate back towards the West Ukrainians. Besides, West Ukraine was sufficiently far from Donbass for Russians there not to feel threatened. ..."
"... So the Western [Ukrainians] hate towards Russians vs. Russian neutral attitude towards Ukrainians has existed for decades. ..."
"... "criminalizes the denial or justification of Russia's aggression against Ukraine" with a fine equivalent to 22 to 44,000 USD for the first offense and up to three years in prison for repeat offenders. ..."
"... But isn't it wrong that the faith of those people will depend on what EU or US will allow them to do rather than on their natural desire? How does it co-exist with all those democratic ideas. ..."
"... They key thing in all of this is to stop being naive. Learn it, remember it. Our media will only care for the "right" journalists and will throw campaigns only for them and there will be rallies only over the death of "right" people, while we won't pay attention to thousands of deaths of the "wrong" people. ..."
"... The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing nationalists and an act that led directly to the current conflict ..."
"... In turn, the maidan coup d'etat de facto disenfranchised the culturally russian majority in SE-ukr. ..."
"... the NW-ukr neonazi bands fighting in SE-ukr are de facto foreign in SE-ukr, both culturally and geo-politically, and are there to give this majority a lesson. ..."
"... In Zakarpattia Oblast, only 410 out of 1,110 people who received draft notices came to mobilization centers, Oleg Lysenko, a representative of General Staff said recently.(kyiv news) ..."
"... For some reason that isn't quite clear to me, discussion among Western experts has overwhelmingly centered not on the imminent economic apocalypse facing Kiev, but on whether or not the United States should supply it with advanced weapons systems to beat back the Russians. ..."
"... It might be inconvenient to note, but Russia is positively crucial to Ukraine's economy not merely as a source of raw materials and energy but as a destination for industrial production that would otherwise be unable to find willing customers. According to Ukrainian government data, Russia accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total foreign trade. The equivalent figure from the Russian side? Somewhere between 6 and 7%. Given that reality, Russia's leverage over Ukraine is obviously much greater that Ukraine's leverage over Russia. ..."
"... During the Vietnam War, the draft was a huge issue with many thousands of young men going to Canada, thousand who were in the military receiving less than honorable discharges and still others doing jail time. The war was view as an unjust war by the better educated and those who didn't have to enlist for food and shelter ("three hots and a cot"). ..."
"... The rebellion against the draft in Ukraine tells us that the war against the people in the Eastern area is an unjust war. People don't need a degree in history to understand when they are being use in ways that is not in their interest. We find only the fascist battalion who are hungry for this war. The US and EU should keep out of this internal civil struggle in Ukraine. ..."
The distrust between the West and the rest of Ukraine is not 14 months old. It has always existed. Since the War at the very
list. Even in Kiev they view Western Ukrainians as strangers. Western Ukrainians would call everyone a moscovite, and
in the East and the South, the Russians were neutral because their lives were much closer to Russia than to all this Ukrainian
bullshit. So they didn't have any hate back towards the West Ukrainians. Besides, West Ukraine was sufficiently far from Donbass
for Russians there not to feel threatened.
So the Western [Ukrainians] hate towards Russians vs. Russian neutral attitude towards Ukrainians has existed for decades.
Systematic
A new law to likely be approved by the Rada "criminalizes the denial or justification of Russia's aggression against Ukraine"
with a fine equivalent to 22 to 44,000 USD for the first offense and up to three years in prison for repeat offenders.
Meanwhile, while the law is not approved,
In February 8 in Mariupol a rally was planned against mobilization. On the eve the adviser of Interior Minister Anton Gerashchenko
said that everyone who comes there will be arrested, "Everyone who comes to the rally tomorrow against mobilization, will be
delayed for several hours for identification and after fingerprinting and photographing until released. Let me remind you that
I and my fellow lawmaker Boris Filatov has filed a bill to impose criminal liability for public calls for the failure of mobilization
"- he wrote on his page on Facebook. As a result, the action did not take place.
With all the hot headed claims of how the Soviet Union just grabbed the piece of land from Poland, Ukraine has a good chance
to correct those misdeeds. Give West Ukraine to Poland, Transkarpathia - to Hungary, and the South West - to Romania. That would be restoring historical
injustice.
vr13vr -> SallyWa 10 Feb 2015 18:18
But isn't it wrong that the faith of those people will depend on what EU or US will allow them to do rather than on their
natural desire? How does it co-exist with all those democratic ideas.
Besides, federalization may or may not protect them. Kiev may or may not adhere to rules in the future, there will be a tax
issue, there will be cultural issues as Kiev will try to Ukrainize those areas subtly - you know those programs that are not anti-Russian
per se but that increase Ukrainian presence, thus diluting the original population. Remaining under the same roof with Kiev and
L'vov isn't really the best solution for Donbass if they want to preserve their independence and identity.
SallyWa -> VladimirM 10 Feb 2015 18:16
They key thing in all of this is to stop being naive. Learn it, remember it. Our media will only care for the "right" journalists
and will throw campaigns only for them and there will be rallies only over the death of "right" people, while we won't pay attention
to thousands of deaths of the "wrong" people.
theeskimo -> ridibundus 10 Feb 2015 18:02
The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing nationalists
and an act that led directly to the current conflict. Now they want to arm a leadership with no national mandate who have ceded
responsibility for prosecuting their war in the east to an ultra nationalist bunch of thugs.
I think it's you who should keep up with what's happening. By the time this is over, Ukraine will be no more.
newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 18:01
Scraping the barrel for cannon fodder by pro-NATO puppet Poroshenko regime: "The draft officers have been tapping men from
20 to 60 years old and women of 20 to 50 years old with relevant military service experience and training. The age limit for senior
officers that could be mobilized is 65 years. Vladyslav Seleznev, spokesman of General Staff, said" (Kyiv news).
theeskimo -> ridibundus 10 Feb 2015 18:02
The US actively encouraged the overthrow of the democratically elected president of Ukraine, a void filled by right wing
nationalists and an act that led directly to the current conflict. Now they want to arm a leadership with no national mandate
who have ceded responsibility for prosecuting their war in the east to an ultra nationalist bunch of thugs.
I think it's you who should keep up with what's happening. By the time this is over, Ukraine will be no more.
newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 18:01
Scraping the barrel for cannon fodder by pro-NATO puppet Poroshenko regime: "The draft officers have been tapping men from
20 to 60 years old and women of 20 to 50 years old with relevant military service experience and training. The age limit for senior
officers that could be mobilized is 65 years. Vladyslav Seleznev, spokesman of General Staff, said" (Kyiv news).
erpiu 10 Feb 2015 17:59
The focus on Putin and geopolitics forces the actual ukr people out of the picture and blurrs understanding.
The maidan was a genuinely popular NW-ukr rebellion after NW-ukr had lost all recent pre-2014 elections to the culturally Russian
majority of voters mainly in SE-ukr.
In turn, the maidan coup d'etat de facto disenfranchised the culturally russian majority in SE-ukr.
the NW-ukr neonazi bands fighting in SE-ukr are de facto foreign in SE-ukr, both culturally and geo-politically, and are
there to give this majority a lesson.
USA+EU weapons would only help the punitive "pacification" of SE ukr, the place that was deciding UKR elections until the coup.
The real festering conflict is the incompatibility of the anti-Russian feelings in NW ukr (little else is shared by the various
maidan factions) with the cccp/russian heritage of most people in SE ukr... that incompatibility is the main problem that needs
to be "solved".
Neither the maidan coup nor yanukovich&the pre-coup electoral dominance of SE ukr voters were ever stable solutions.
newsflashUK 10 Feb 2015 17:57
In Zakarpattia Oblast, only 410 out of 1,110 people who received draft notices came to mobilization centers, Oleg Lysenko,
a representative of General Staff said recently.(kyiv news)
SallyWa 10 Feb 2015 17:51
Ukraine's Economy Is Collapsing And The West Doesn't Seem To Care
For some reason that isn't quite clear to me, discussion among Western experts has overwhelmingly centered not on the imminent
economic apocalypse facing Kiev, but on whether or not the United States should supply it with advanced weapons systems to
beat back the Russians.
It might be inconvenient to note, but Russia is positively crucial to Ukraine's economy not merely as a source of raw
materials and energy but as a destination for industrial production that would otherwise be unable to find willing customers.
According to Ukrainian government data, Russia accounted for roughly a quarter of the country's total foreign trade. The equivalent
figure from the Russian side? Somewhere between 6 and 7%. Given that reality, Russia's leverage over Ukraine is obviously much
greater that Ukraine's leverage over Russia.
During WW 2 Draft dodging was almost unheard of. The war was perceived as "just", a righteous cause. Thus, men correctly saw
it as their duty to take up arms against fascism.
During the Vietnam War, the draft was a huge issue with many thousands of young men going to Canada, thousand who were
in the military receiving less than honorable discharges and still others doing jail time. The war was view as an unjust war by
the better educated and those who didn't have to enlist for food and shelter ("three hots and a cot").
The rebellion against the draft in Ukraine tells us that the war against the people in the Eastern area is an unjust war.
People don't need a degree in history to understand when they are being use in ways that is not in their interest. We find only
the fascist battalion who are hungry for this war. The US and EU should keep out of this internal civil struggle in Ukraine.
In reality Ukraine is run by neoliberals. Still this is an interesting propaganda twist. Actually "antisemitism" bait works perfectly well
in most cases.
80% of the readers will not read more than that headline.
The first paragraph:
Donetsk (Ukraine) (AFP) - Ukraine's pro-Russian rebel chief on Monday branded the country's leaders
"miserable" Jews in an apparent anti-Semitic jibe.
Of those 20% of the readers who will read the first paragraph only one forth will also read the
second one. The "anti-semitic" accusation has thereby been planted in 95% of the readership. Now
here is the second paragraph:
Alexander Zakharchenko, leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic, claimed that
Kiev's pro-Western leaders were "miserable representatives of the great Jewish people".
Saying that George W. Bush and Dick Cheney were "miserable representatives of the great American
people" would be "anti-American"? What is anti-semitic in calling "the Jewish people" "great"?
The AFP reporter and editor who put that up deserve an Orwellian reward. It is one of the most
misleading quotations I have ever seen. Accusing Zakharchenko of anti-semitism when he is actually
lauding Jews.
Now I do not agree with Zakharchenko. There is
no such
thing as "the Jewish people" in the sense of a racial or national determination. There are people
of various nationalities and racial heritages who assert that they follow, or their ancestors followed,
religious Jewish believes. Some of them may have been or are "great".
But that does not make them "the Jewish people" just like followers of Scientology do not make
"the Scientologish people".
Saker has a link to the youtube, the audio in Russian with English subtitles. It begins at
about 12:30.
@3
When Sarkozy came in AFP really hit the skids. Like the NYTimes and Bush XLIII.
Lysander | Feb 3, 2015 12:02:09 PM | 13
What Zacharchenko did that was unforgivable is to draw attention to the fact that Kiev's current
leadership is largely Jewish. From Yats to Petro (Waltzman) Poroshenko To Igor Kolomoiski. No
matter how gracefully Zach would put it, it is the content that they hate.
Not saying there is anything wrong with that, but I guess there are some who would rather you
not notice.
Right-wing nazi-rag KyivPost has a miserable coverage of same piece. "Agence France-Presse:
Russia's guy says Ukraine run by 'miserable Jews'" Zhakharchenko is "Russia's guy," his picture
under the headline with a totally unrelated caption, subtitled by the first paragraph of the AFP
fake "news" (sic!)"Ukraine's pro-Russian rebel chief on Monday branded the country's leaders
"miserable" Jews in an apparent anti-Semitic jibe.", and a link to Yahoo news reproducing
the AFP piece in full.
Zionazi thieves stole the word "semitic" to mean "Jews," when in fact it comprehends many other
languages and peoples. Zhakharchenko's AFP phony "anti-Semitic jibe" would be insulting to all
these many peoples.
"...Semitic peoples and their languages, in ancient historic times (between the 30th and
20th centuries BC), covered a broad area which encompassed what are today the modern states and
regions of Iraq, Syria, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Palestinian territories, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait,
Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and the Sinai Peninsula and Malta..."
...The word "Semite" and most uses of the word "Semitic" relate to any people whose native
tongue is, or was historically, a member of the associated language family.[35][36] The term "anti-Semite",
however, came by a circuitous route to refer most commonly to one hostile or discriminatory towards
Jews in particular...[37]
Yet another historical theft by the so-called "chosen" crooks.
Today we know that the
stupid
denigration of the Sochi Olympics in "western" propaganda media was
part of the plan
for the
coup in Ukraine. On of distinct features of psychopaths is a lack of 'strategic empathy'. One one
commenter noted: "for me personally, discussing and seeking ideas an alternatives to the financial
oligarchy hiding underneath the us$ is worth it.. it has nothing to do with Putin, or only in so far
as he represents an alternative - something that western countries are not offering.. i "
Notable quotes:
"... The U.S. is ill informed about and underestimating Russia. Therein lies the possibility of serious miscalculations. ..."
"... Born in Krym, I came to the US critical of USSR, but was astounded at the viciousness (and lies) of anti-Soviet propaganda. Nothing prepared me for that. After the fall, there seemed to be a short respite - but now it's full speed ahead - see if we can replicate the worst of the Cold War. Simply heart-breaking... how much better the planet would be if the two countries cooperated. ..."
"... for me personally, discussing and seeking ideas an alternatives to the financial oligarchy hiding underneath the us$ is worth it.. it has nothing to do with putin, or only in so far as he represents an alternative - something that western countries are not offering.. i ..."
"... it might not be any different in russia, but the financial demons that are pushing for global domination via the us$ are no friends of mine or of the planet ..."
"... 2015 is likely to be a dangerous year because the Empire is going for broke, as unpleasantly as possible. But the bloodiness of its intentions is now amplified by economic war; and cutthroat oil devaluation may backfire, leaving them to stumble down unpredictable paths; and it is obvious that the ruling class is exposed by its desperation , with a more fragile hold of the reins than they realize. Their confidence is just as puffed up as their hubris. ..."
"... I believe that using a given Olympics as a platform to advertise one's country to the world is utterly futile, because no Olympics are ever even going to come close to the 1936 Summer Olympics, because of how Leni Riefenstahl filmed them in Olympia. Rammstein have kindly selected the highlights of Riefenstahl's brilliant film and used them in the video of their cover of Depeche Mode's Stripped. ..."
"... It should be noted that at the climax of the video – a throng of women gymnasts gleefully and ecstatically swinging their arms in perfect synchrony – the video cuts to a flying American flag taking up the whole screen. This is the only footage that is in the Rammstein video that was not taken from Riefenstahl's film. The message is clear: America has replaced Germany as the seat of fascism. ..."
"... blind worship of anything or anyone capitalist and representing the ruling classes is something to be skeptical and distrustful of. The ruling class is mostly capitalists and populism is a tool for such folks and not typically a core belief. ..."
"... Anyway, I say so far so good. I love Putin for his 2014 actions in Syria or Ukraine, which blocked Western imperial wins and saved many innocent lives. ..."
"... The few Ukie/NATO trolls that habituate themselves here say the same things over and over. Its amazing to see how many ways they can find to say "Putin lover" over and over again in the same paragraph, and literally nothing else. ..."
"... In the end they often achieve their goal because when your shilling for a lie, muddying the waters is as good as a win. ..."
"... It is not a bug, it is a feature - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Libya .... ..."
"... Furthermore, the majority don't give a shit about history, other countries, or their history. ..."
"... It's not simply about the uneducated masses, the leaders are uniformly educated at conformist, grade-inflated Ivy League or Ivy League equivalent institutions where anyone, even George Bush Jr., can graduate with a B- average. ..."
"... Obama is disengaged, an affirmative action actor/spokesmodel who'd rather be smoking a joint at his Hawaii beach house. Biden and Bush are similar, but also morons. ..."
"... It is clear to me that 'b' overestimates the numerical strength and political power of the "non-poodle" components of Europe. ..."
"... It is clear to me that Germany in particular is a "poodle", as the saying goes, and in other words German political society is committed to being in alignment with the USA for good and for ill, for better and for worse. ..."
"... I expect him to remain a figurehead, but I expect the militias to continue to assert themselves. We'll see what comes of the prosecutions, that will be a tell. ..."
"... "It is therefore quite possible that Poroshenko is simply seeking to gain time and work on preparing the country for an all-out war, even though it is clear that people on all sides will suffer as a result. Or at the very least that he will be unable to stop the war drums even if he wishes to." ..."
That illegal regime change was itself part of a bigger plan to restart a cold war, which will
allow the U.S. to assert even more control over Europe, and eventually for regime change in Russia.
I am confident that in 2015 the non-poodle parts of Europe and Russia itself will assert themselves
and block and counter the neo-imperial U.S. moves. As my
Do Svidanya Sochi
piece said:
The Russians will be very proud of these games. They will be grateful to their government and
president for having delivered them. The internal and external message is understood: Russia has
again found itself and it is stronger than ever.
The U.S. is ill informed about and underestimating Russia. Therein lies the possibility of
serious miscalculations.
My hope for 2015 is that any miscalculations will be avoided and that peace will mostly prevail.
My very best wishes to all of you for a happy year 2015.
On what you say: 'Today we know that the stupid denigration of the Sochi Olympics in "western"
propaganda media was part of the plan for the coup in Ukraine.' This strikes me as placing too
much emphasis on design as opposed to miscalculation, or perhaps, as this blogpost suggests, a
lack of 'strategic empathy':
http://irrussianality.wordpress.com/2014/12/31/the-need-for-strategic-empathy/
GoraDiva | Dec 31, 2014 1:33:23 PM | 6
Best to you and thanks for running a great blog!
Born in Krym, I came to the US critical of USSR, but was astounded at the viciousness (and
lies) of anti-Soviet propaganda. Nothing prepared me for that. After the fall, there seemed to be a short respite - but now it's full speed ahead - see if
we can replicate the worst of the Cold War. Simply heart-breaking... how much better the planet
would be if the two countries cooperated.
Combining Russian knowledge and creativity with American ingenuity and entrepreneurship...
- yes, one can only dream. All we have now is an unstoppable desire to dominate and a complete
failure of imagination. But nothing lasts forever... so let's hope for a brighter and more honest
future.
Oliver Stone on the narrative
USA In
Ukraine.
Always love those comments, 2,473 and counting. Links to Pepe Escobar's analysis "The
new European 'arc of instability,'" which indicates growing turbulence in 2015, as the US
cannot tolerate the idea of any rival economic entity.
james | Dec 31, 2014 6:56:35 PM | 17
hey sloth.. for me personally, discussing and seeking ideas an alternatives to the financial
oligarchy hiding underneath the us$ is worth it.. it has nothing to do with putin, or only in
so far as he represents an alternative - something that western countries are not offering.. i
live in canada and when i see the country being raped by corps that have only as much concern
for the environment as our politicians will demand, i get discouraged. these same politicians
don't represent me or ordinary canucks, but these same corps wanting to take the resources while
giving few jobs in return..
it might not be any different in russia, but the financial demons that are pushing for
global domination via the us$ are no friends of mine or of the planet..
they will switch to another whore when the us$ is no more.. this isn't about hero worship..
it's about recognizing how we in the west are being conned and lied to by financial interests
who own the press and have nothing to do with my best interests.. no hero worship on my part.
you saying folks put putin on a pedestal is your own wishful thinking bullshit.
okie farmer | Dec 31, 2014 7:05:26 PM | 18
BBC World Service this morning said Moscow's riot police had dispersed Navalny's demonstrators
keeping them off the sidewalks etc. I watched a live feed of the demonstration for hours, I counted
about 80 demonstrators and about 20 police. Actually the demonstration was in a small plaza and
no one was "dispersed". The police, however, were on the sidewalks watching the demonstrators
in the plaza, which BBC turned on it's head for propaganda purposes.
Copeland | Dec 31, 2014 8:43:40 PM | 23
2015 is likely to be a dangerous year because the Empire is going for broke, as unpleasantly
as possible. But the bloodiness of its intentions is now amplified by economic war; and cutthroat
oil devaluation may backfire, leaving them to stumble down unpredictable paths; and it is obvious
that the ruling class is exposed by its desperation , with a more fragile hold of the reins than
they realize. Their confidence is just as puffed up as their hubris.
I go into the New Year cheering b, our host at this bar. And I feel so much respect for those
among us who resist, who constantly refuse to capitulate to the Forces of Darkness; and so I believe
the spirit that sustains us will be here in abundance, in 2015: solidarity, imagination and ingenuity,
indignation and revolt, love and catharsis, all strength of character to encourage, and yes, an
ample measure of good luck.
May we live to see a better year.
Demian | Dec 31, 2014 10:18:13 PM | 26
To address the matter of the Sochi Olympics. I had wondered about what the performances were
like, and since I don't have a TV, b's linking to a video of the highlights was the first opportunity
I had to see what the Russians had done in an apparent effort to represent Russia as a solid part
of Europe. (This is what reports said was the purpose of putting so much effort into these Olympics.
Warning: I am not into ballet.)
I believe that using a given Olympics as a platform to advertise one's country to the world
is utterly futile, because no Olympics are ever even going to come close to the 1936 Summer Olympics,
because of how Leni Riefenstahl filmed them in Olympia. Rammstein have kindly selected the highlights
of Riefenstahl's brilliant film and used them in the video of their cover of Depeche Mode's Stripped.
This is some of the best film making I have ever seen. Every single scene in the Rammstein video
is mind blowing. Particularly notable are the sequence with the girls swinging their arms in tandem
and the women and men diving into water. As far as I know, there is nothing like that elsewhere
in cinema. It is a war crime that with cinematography and editing like that, Riefenstahl wasn't
permitted by the occupying powers to continue making films.
It should be noted that at the climax of the video – a throng of women gymnasts gleefully and
ecstatically swinging their arms in perfect synchrony – the video cuts to a flying American flag
taking up the whole screen. This is the only footage that is in the Rammstein video that was not
taken from Riefenstahl's film. The message is clear: America has replaced Germany as the seat
of fascism.
Compared to Olympia, what the Russians did with the Sochi Olympics is nothing but Kitsch.
And in addition to Saker himself and Paul Craig, there is the WHITE PAPER posted by the former
and alluded to by the latter :
The DOUBLE HELIX:
CHINA-RUSSIA. Seems very solid.
And towards the end, the Larchmonter makes some interesting observations on North Korea, and
so, obliquely on the 'Lost U.S. Credibility On Cyber Claims'.
I don't see b or this blog in that way, but blind worship of anything or anyone capitalist
and representing the ruling classes is something to be skeptical and distrustful of. The ruling
class is mostly capitalists and populism is a tool for such folks and not typically a core belief.
But Putin's actions show he _is_ a real Russian nationalist, and he has a real-world,
non-imperialist understanding of what Russian nationalism covers and doesn't cover.
Anyway, I say so far so good. I love Putin for his 2014 actions in Syria or Ukraine, which
blocked Western imperial wins and saved many innocent lives. I just wish he (and China) had
woken up sooner, in 2013, and maybe the rape of Libya could've been prevented. So, Putin is a
major actor in world affairs, he's on the anti-imperial side of history, and as far as I can tell
he is on the side of all who fight the Western financial borg's world dominance and austerity
crusade.
However, the next twenty years is about China and what it decides to do and who it decides
ultimately to ally with. Maybe Putin fever can be cured a bit if we imagine him checking his every
major move with Xi Jinping. Quiet Xi is the real man going forward. Not as much fun at parties,
not as animated facial expressions, not as direct or as artful in expression as Putin, but he
(and what he represents) is the real power.
And, if Xi and Putin remain allied, this may really turn out to be the Chinese century. Hope
no feelings are hurt but I don't guess it will be known as the Eurasian Century.
That said, the only thing I remember from Sochi are Yu Na and the other beautiful Asian figure
skaters.
Here is an event presented in the New York Times: a "sweeping roundup of dissidents":
[A performance artist] was detained at her mother's home hours before the event and released
Wednesday afternoon, along with several others.
That's a "sweeping roundup of dissidents" - briefly questioning someone at their mother's home.
Of course the job of the New York Times is to blow things out of proportion. How else to can
the NYTimes present the enforcement of mundane laws in Cuba (laws which all countries have) to
the American people, who see their police forces daily murder people? The NYTimes has a job to
do (as does any propagandist): they have to convince the home population that they are living
under the best conditions possible while giving the impression that life anywhere else is a dystopian
nightmare. Truth be told - for a significant sector of the US population, as events in NYC and
Ferguson have recently shown - the reality is exactly reversed!
Consider too, what she was briefly detained for - seeking to assemble without a permit - and
ask yourself: what happens in the United States when people attempt to assemble without a permit
in some of the most heavily trafficked areas of the US largest cities? What would occur, should,
say, the New Black Panther Party attempted to set up a rally in Times Square unannounced? What
happened, indeed, when the Obama Administration had enough of the Occupy Movement? The tear gassing,
the pepper spraying, the ejection of people from a park where they had a right to be.
Face the facts. The US allows no public displays of dissent without the approval of the
authorities. Yet what is presented in the US as "public order" is, in Cuba, portrayed as some
sort of totalitarian repression. This is sheer hypocrisy from those who have an interest in smashing
an independent government in Cuba, and convincing the American people that we live in a "free"
society.
It sort of says it all that she chose the location of the memorial to the sunken Maine Battleship
- the incident that brought the most recent wave of US Imperialism to Cuba.
"She then announced a news conference and public gathering on the Malecón, ...at the memorial
to the Maine, the American battleship that sank in Havana Harbor in 1898."
guest77 | Jan 1, 2015 2:53:39 PM | 34
You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to
remove the speck from your brother's eye.Matthew 7:5
There is no statement more appropriate to present to those sitting in the US, smug in their
conviction that their country is the righteous one, and that Russia and "evil" Putin are the aggressors.
The fact is, there is little in Russian behavior - at home or internationally - which one can
point at negatively in which the United States doesn't out do them by a long stretch. From the
military sphere, to the way it treats its smaller partners and neighbors, to the way it provides
for its people at home.
May 2015 be the year hypocrisy faces consequences.
Yes that's great stuff. Cant say I enjoy reading the comments but over and over it becomes
clear that the pro-US, pro NATO, pro IMF rah rah fools have NOTHING.
The most they can manage is "Putin lover" or "why don't you marry Putin if you love him so
much"...etc., some turn it around and say instead "why don't you move to Russia if you hate America
so much"..LOL.
The few Ukie/NATO trolls that habituate themselves here say the same things over and over.
Its amazing to see how many ways they can find to say "Putin lover" over and over again in the
same paragraph, and literally nothing else. When they do attempt to argue the extant facts
they merely invert them and mimic the arguments of we anti imperialists, standing reality on its
head. These are classic, textbook reactionary rhetorical "styles"...They cant argue facts because
any facts they are willing to admit to almost never support their opinions. In the end they
often achieve their goal because when your shilling for a lie, muddying the waters is as good
as a win. The best way to deal with these trolls and shills ? Don't engage them directly
at all, but address their nonsense obliquely and restate the true facts clearly and repeatedly
.
fairleft@29- Watching the 2008 Chinese Olympics opening ceremony I remember being bowled over
by the precision and artistry. I remember thinking we in the US are truly screwed. With Sochi
not so much -- kitschy as you would expect. However I think Russia's actions in 2014 were duly
impressive. Your post made me think of Putin re Knut Rockne's quote: "One man practicing sportsmanship
is far better than a hundred teaching it."
It 's funny I know next to nothing of Xi Jingping- I'll have to remedy that this year.
But now several of these units, especially those linked to oligarchs or the far right, are
revealing a dark side. In recent months, they have threatened and kidnapped government officials,
boasted that they will take power if Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko fails to defeat Russia,
and they served as armed muscle in illegal attempts to take over businesses or seize local
governments.
In August, members of the Dnepr-1 battalion kidnapped the head of Ukraine's state land fund
to prevent him replacing an official deemed inimical to business interests. On Dec. 15, these
volunteer units interdicted a humanitarian convoy destined for the Russia-controlled Donbas,
where a major emergency is emerging.
On Dec. 23, the Azov brigade announced that it was taking control of order in the eastern
port city of Mariupol, without official approval from local or national officials.
Government prosecutors have opened 38 criminal cases against members of the Aidar battalion
alone.
A pattern of blatant disregard for the chain of command, lawlessness and racketeering is
posing a growing threat to Ukraine's stability at a critical juncture. Concern about volunteer
groupings is widely shared in the Poroshenko administration, which reportedly raised the question
of dealing with these dangers at a meeting in November of his National Security and Defense
Council.
Most alarming, however, is the role of Ukraine's interior minister, Arsen Avakov. Instead
of reining in these fighters, conducting background checks on their records and reassigning
those who pass muster, he instead has offered them new heavy weapons, including tanks and armored
personnel carriers, and given them enhanced brigade status. Amazingly, in September he even
named a leader of the neo-Nazi Azov brigade to head the police in the Kiev region.
Equally worrying is the activity of Ihor Kolomoyskyy, the governor of Dnipropetrovsk oblast.
Kolomoyskyy, who played a crucial and widely respected role in stabilizing his East Ukrainian
region, is now flouting central authority by interdicting aid convoys headed to the Donbas
and permitting brigades he finances to engage in activities that contravene the law.
What can be done? Poroshenko clearly wants this problem resolved but has been reluctant
or unable to act. For him to succeed will likely require coordination with Prime Minister Arseniy
Yatsenyuk, who has also been slow to address the threat, possibly because Avakov is one of
his key political allies.
Now, we all know that Yatseniuk is Victoria Nuland's guy - so the US support war lordism in
Ukraine?
It is not a bug, it is a feature - in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Somalia, Libya ....
haha, here is how the author is described in that op-ed:
Adrian Karatnycky is a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, where he co-directs the "Ukraine
in Europe" initiative.
The author complains about "warlordism" in Ukraine, but it is the "Ukraine in Europe" "initiative"
which has produced the warlordism. You really have to wonder how these people can live with themselves
and keep on producing such pieces which studiously ignore the obvious.
I couldn't agree with you more, GoraDiva. But you have to understand how badly educated we
Americans are. Furthermore, the majority don't give a shit about history, other countries,
or their history.
And, literally, no Americans know how well-educated Russians are who went to university under
the USSR system; they have no idea of the rigor. None. No one. They think Putin is some KGB agent
who studied at the equivalent of a Police Academy, and managed to get lucky and win a few elections,
and view him as someone similar to a Brooklyn mafia don. They don't know about Putin's Master's
and PhD degrees, or what they were in.
They don't know that Lavrov can run rings around Kerry intellectually, and speaks, what? Five
or six languages fluently?
They regurgitate what the former house-painter Sean Hannity thinks of Putin, who regurgitates
what he heard growing up on the streets of New York. These guys don't read.
I really don't understand why this blog became a living monument to Putin. At times, I think
that b's hatred of the US has something to do with the gutless murder of civilian Hamburgers
by allied bombers. On the other hand, the Red Army raped and murdered countless thousands of
German civilians. And rather unlike the Russians, the American occupation was colossally more
favorable to Hamburgers that was to anyone living in the Soviet bloc.
But the biggy is what Eisenhower did to German POWs just after the war. He killed a million,
dumped lye on them, and ground them into the dirt. Story in Saturday Night, 1989. Make sure you
scroll down to see the photos. Eisenhower made them live in hole in the ground. Eisenhower's Death Camps-The Last Dirty Secret of World War Two by historian James Basque http://www.whale.to/b/bacque1.html
It's not simply about the uneducated masses, the leaders are uniformly educated at conformist,
grade-inflated Ivy League or Ivy League equivalent institutions where anyone, even George Bush
Jr., can graduate with a B- average.
And then the magic of connections and just doing what you're told can push an unqualified,
uninterested dolt all the way to the top or near top.
Looking at Obama/Biden, Bush/Cheney, the only one who seemed smart and who knew and cared about
what he was doing was the sociopath Cheney.
Obama is disengaged, an affirmative action actor/spokesmodel who'd rather be smoking a
joint at his Hawaii beach house. Biden and Bush are similar, but also morons.
A Presidential candidate who is engaged, very smart and well-informed sticks out like a sore
thumb and has a hard time earning the trust of the powers that be. Hillary Clinton in 2008 is
a good example. (She's done a lot (of horrible things) since then to earn the PTB's trust, though.)
For the reason that being smart, engaged and well-read means you are potentially independent-minded
in a sudden crisis. What if, for example, a sudden huge economic/mortgage crisis occurs and the
extremely obvious thing to do is help homeowners directly, let the foolish banks who bankrupted
themselves suffer the consequences, and pour money into public works and workers' pockets? In
such a crisis, the PTB wants a bored, conformist, "don't give a shit" President who'll do exactly
what Goldman Sachs tells him to do, not a smart, engaged, well-informed and potentially independent
thinker/decider.
So the U.S. will continue to have an intellectual deficit at the top, and Russia will continue
to win diplomatic and other battles with the U.S. even in situations where it's significantly
'outweighed'. Brains are too untrustworthy, they make the Wall Street boys nervous.
You have the same problem as b. The world is shades of grey not good and bad.
The "novorussian" side is fighting in the areas where Ukrainian/Russian oligarchs have interests
who lost when Yanukovich was ousted. By withdrawing his own Russian nationalist fanatics Putin
left the field to them. The non-destruction and shake down of Mariupol is a good case study of
what is going on. Kolomoisky (Dnepopetrovsk) is in a take over fight with Akhmetov (Donbass).
There seems to be an agreement between Putin, Poroshenko and the EU (devolution and Donbass
remaining part of Ukraine), just Poroshenko has not got the power (the security/military apparatus
is in the hands of the Yatseniuk/Avakov/Kolomoisky faction backed by Victoria Nuland) to deal.
Poroshenko's statements are devoid of any logic as he tries to cover the divide in his political
coalition. At the same time obviously, he is in it for himself. On the other hand there is the
issue of the funding of the Novorussian side. A lot of that will be a shake down of the oligarchs,
too, and the genie probably has come out of the bottle there, too.
There is something intriguing about the Dniepopetrovsk private civilian and military airport
run by Kolomoisky's airline. And there is a gap in the conspiracy theories of the usual Russian
linked, Western left media outlets.
Indian media is full of it, just google it.
According to reports in the media, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was scheduled to take off at
1 PM from Frankfurt on his way back to India from Brazil where he had gone for a meeting of
the leaders of the BRICS countries. His flight eventually took off at 1:22 PM. Had Modi's flight
taken off at 1 PM as the earlier reports had indicated, it would have been in the vicinity
of the shooting within six minutes of the Malaysian Airlines flight being shot down. ... What
makes the claim that MH 17 was mistaken for an Ukrainian military plane a highly questionable
one is that the plane was just 20 miles from the Russian border and the Ukrainian government
would not dare provoke Russia by sending military planes to cross over into Russian airspace.
It is unlikely that the anyone could have mistaken a plane headed for Russia as an Ukrainian
military aircraft. ... Modi's election in May as the Indian Prime Minister caused a huge geopolitical
earthquake, and any harm to him will have great ramifications around the world.
Actually, Modi was on his return from Brazil where BRICS had just voted on the founding of
a BRICS development bank.
Now, this is a very good conspiracy theory with all the necessary ingredients. How come this
has been restricted to India?
This US imperialist propaganda piece must be written by one of the staff comedians! Bandera
is Che Guevara! Chocolate king Poroshenko fought on the barricades!
Notice the backhanded support to these n@zis? Our propaganda machine wants you to think
that only "Moscow" says Bandera fought on the side of Hitler and the N@zis. Notice how the
article tries to justify Bandera's fighting with the n@zis by blaming the 1930s famine -- but
not mentioning the famine affected the whole USSR and was made worse by US economic embargo
(just like today!)
These are the n@zis on whom our US government of hypocrites spent 5 billion of our tax dollars
to bring to power and overthrow an elected government. These n@zis have attacked all media
and parties in Ukraine that oppose the US puppet junta.
The people of the east are overwhelmingly Russian speaking working class people, miners
and factory workers, who refused their appointed oligarch governors and declared their independence
of the junta.
Our US government wants to turn Ukraine into a low wage colony and establish first-strike
nuclear missile bases in Ukraine directed against Russia. The restoration of capitalism in
Ukraine has brought disaster.
No surprise that some US politicians mingle with N@zis in Louisiana!
the nonpoodle parts of europe will have to be aware of sedition from its own peoples as with
the various Arab springs and Ukraine's Maidan, where locals serve to agitate for a foreign power
while talking about 'freedom and democracy'
Sergey Lavrov said on 15 Dec 2014: "We have overestimated the independence of the European
Union [from the US]." http://itar-tass.com/en/russia/767282
. Lavrov made that comment in contemplation of the trade sanctions imposed by the EU on Russia
last summer & autumn including particularly the manner in which the sanctions were discussed and
not debated by EU political society.
It is clear to me that 'b' overestimates the numerical strength and political power of
the "non-poodle" components of Europe. 'b' makes a bold declaration in his above post that
"I am confident that in 2015 the non-poodle parts of Europe and Russia itself will assert themselves
and block and counter the neo-imperial U.S. moves."
It is clear to me that Germany in particular is a "poodle", as the saying goes, and in
other words German political society is committed to being in alignment with the USA for good
and for ill, for better and for worse.
I repeat, the "non-poodle parts of Europe" have no teeth in Europe. You've seen that consistently
in recent years, and you've no intelligent basis for supposing you're not going to be seeing it
in 2015.
I'm sorry that I did not make my intent clear. I've been posting about the dangers posed by
the militias and the rivalry btw. Poroshenko and Kolomoisky for a bit (good to see the WaPo has
caught up, as you advise in 39 -- NYT is my MSM paper-of-record of choice, so I don't see the
Post, thanks). I offered it as evidence of growing discord amongst the junta, not praise for Poroshenko's
virtue. I expect him to remain a figurehead, but I expect the militias to continue to assert
themselves. We'll see what comes of the prosecutions, that will be a tell.
I see the junta as shades of black -- midnight, charcoal, jet, ebony, etc. The Opposition Bloc
is grey.
More grist for the mill -- nice pc. from Fort Russ, Is Poroshenko Preparing
for Peace or War?. The whole pc. is worth reading, thorough consideration of Poroshenko's
position, but here's the bottom line.
"It is therefore quite possible that Poroshenko is simply seeking to gain time and work
on preparing the country for an all-out war, even though it is clear that people on all sides
will suffer as a result. Or at the very least that he will be unable to stop the war drums
even if he wishes to."
This is two years old exchange from the Guardian reader forum. Nothing changed...
Notable quotes:
"... The Mighty Wurlitzer: How the CIA Played America, is a good book to read, it documents boasts from the CIA that they controlled western media and at the press of a button could hear the same tune played all over the western world. ..."
"... The people in the 'western' world think their media is 'free', 'unbiased', 'investigated' but in sad reality it is far from any of those things. It is a mega phone for the narrative the govts of the west (primarily US, UK, EU and sadly Australia) want amplified. ..."
"... I am not sure how it works with the MSM. What I have noticed over the years, is that in certain times of war or geopolitical maneuvorings, the BBC and Guardian (and others), but especially those two, seem to have some sort of agreement with the Intelligence Services/Foreign Office to write subtle propaganda or lead with a certain narrative. ..."
"... This means, the producers or editors at the BBC have agreed with the Security services to allow them to control the media at certain times. Likewise, we see the same in the Guardian, especially at certain times. ..."
21st Century Wire founder was on cross talk recently with others that are trying to call
the media out on these things.
>It seems to me that the Intelligence Services have colonised the media. The Mighty Wurlitzer:
How the CIA Played America, is a good book to read, it documents boasts from the CIA that they
controlled western media and at the press of a button could hear the same tune played all over
the western world.
Really, it is up to Guardian and BBC journalists and broadcasters to take a long hard look
at themselves and ask why am I being made to sell war propaganda? the BBC news 24 channel had
someone on trying to talk up a war with Russia last night, as I was watching it I was
wondering if the BBC News presenter, an intelligent man, would have enough moral fibre to
realize he is being used to sell a warmongering narrative? But he didnt, which is why I can no
longer pay that organisation anymore money.
stregs101 -> RussBrown 9 Feb 2015 21:00
I agree.
The people in the 'western' world think their media is 'free', 'unbiased', 'investigated'
but in sad reality it is far from any of those things. It is a mega phone for the narrative
the govts of the west (primarily US, UK, EU and sadly Australia) want amplified.
Last week there was an article promoting 'full scale war' in relation to arming Kiev. This
type of reporting is actually deemed a 'crime against the peace' under Nuremberg.
By upholding the lies and fabrications of US foreign policy, the mainstream media is complicit
in war crimes. Without media propaganda, this military agenda under the guise of counter-terrorism would fall
flat, collapse like a deck of cards.
21st Century Wire founder was on cross talk recently with others that are trying to call
the media out on these things.
RussBrown -> seaspan 9 Feb 2015 19:54
I am not sure how it works with the MSM. What I have noticed over the years, is that in
certain times of war or geopolitical maneuvorings, the BBC and Guardian (and others), but
especially those two, seem to have some sort of agreement with the Intelligence
Services/Foreign Office to write subtle propaganda or lead with a certain narrative.
Take for
example the BBC headlines yesterday, top story was 15 people killed in Ukraine and calls to
arm Kiev against Russian aggression. Now the this was TOP news story, the BBC have totally
ignored reporting Ukrainian civilian massacres (over 5000 have died), until they are selling a
narrative they want to persuade everyone with, such as that we need to arm Kiev against
Russian aggression.
This means, the producers or editors at the BBC have agreed with the
Security services to allow them to control the media at certain times. Likewise, we see the
same in the Guardian, especially at certain times.
So the anti-Russian campaign probably started after Sochi Olympics if nor earlier. Now we see just a new stage of it.
Notable quotes:
"... Western media, analysts and commentator spew the same inane nonsense regarding Russia. Either Putin is the new Hitler or he is just like Stalin or trying to become a new Tsar. Western experts accuse Putin of trying to revive the USSR one day only to accuse Putin re-establishing the Russian Empire the day afterwards. ..."
"... West media oscillates from Russia is about collapse to Russia is about to invade Europe and conquer the world! ..."
"... For nearly two hours, the Russian president reeled off a litany of resentments. The west had proclaimed victory in the cold war. It had cheated Moscow by expanding the EU and Nato right to Russia's borders. It had ignored international rules to pursue reckless policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. ..."
"... So far, the sanctions have acted as what one US official calls an "accelerant" to the unexpected plunge in oil prices, pushing Russia into a deep economic crisis. The rouble has tumbled, leaving Russia facing recession and spiralling inflation, challenging its ability to fund its costly stealth war in Ukraine (where the Kremlin insists there are no Russian soldiers on the ground, despite ample evidence to the contrary [Where is the evidence? Please state what the evidence is.]). ..."
"... I stopped reading the FT years ago . For the financial stuff it was quite good (!) and had a good level for people not accompli in such matters, but it always sucked ass * politically as it is generally to the far right of Ghengis Khan (my apologies to him as I am probably one of the descendents of the many beautiful ladies he porked – apparently 1 in 7 of us are). ..."
Western media, analysts and commentator spew the same inane nonsense regarding Russia. Either
Putin is the new Hitler or he is just like Stalin or trying to become a new Tsar. Western experts
accuse Putin of trying to revive the USSR one day only to accuse Putin re-establishing the Russian
Empire the day afterwards.
West media oscillates from Russia is about collapse to Russia is about to invade Europe and
conquer the world!
Extracts from the FT article: "Battle for Ukraine:
How the west lost Putin"
It was past 10pm and the German chancellor was sitting in a Hilton hotel conference room
in Brisbane, Australia. Her interlocutor was the implacable Vladimir Putin. For nearly two hours,
the Russian president reeled off a litany of resentments. The west had proclaimed victory in the
cold war. It had cheated Moscow by expanding the EU and Nato right to Russia's borders. It had
ignored international rules to pursue reckless policies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya.
The chancellor steered the conversation back to eastern Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatists
were engaged in a bloody struggle against the western-backed government in Kiev, according
to a person familiar with the meeting [WHO? No names, no pack drill?]. Since
the crisis began, Ms Merkel [Why Ms? She is "Frau" and she is married. Does the journalist
not know that? Does he think that Bundeskanzlerin Merkel wants to keep her marital status a secret?
Fucking PC crap!] had worked hard to extract some sense from Mr Putin of what he wanted - something
she could use to construct an agreement. When he finally offered a solution, she was shocked.
Mr Putin declared Kiev should deal with the rebels the way he had dealt with Russia's breakaway
Chechnya region: by buying them off with autonomy and money. A reasonable idea, perhaps, to an
ex-KGB colonel. But for an East German pastor's daughter, with a deeply-ingrained sense of fairness,
this was unacceptable.
Ms Merkel had asked her closest advisers to stay outside during the Brisbane meeting,
on November 15 last year. "She wanted to be alone . . . to test whether she could get Putin to
be more open about what he really wants",says someone briefed on the conversation [WHO?].
"But he wouldn't say what his strategy is, because he doesn't know".
For Moscow, too, something snapped. Weeks later, a Kremlin official [WHO?]
dismissed the notion, often cited in diplomatic circles, that there had ever been a "special relationship"
between the two leaders. "Putin and Merkel could never stand each other", he told the Financial
Times. "Of course, they are professionals, so they tried to make the best of it for a long time.
But that seems to have changed now."
The Merkel-Putin encounter in Australia marked a turning point. After a year of crisis,
the west realised that it had been pursuing an illusion: for all its post-communist tribulations,
Russia was always seen to be on an inexorable path of convergence with Europe and the west - what a senior German official [WHO?]
calls the notion that "in the end,
they'll all become like us".
So far, the sanctions have acted as what one US official calls an "accelerant" to the
unexpected plunge in oil prices, pushing Russia into a deep economic crisis. The rouble has tumbled,
leaving Russia facing recession and spiralling inflation, challenging its ability to fund its
costly stealth war in Ukraine (where the Kremlin insists there are no Russian soldiers on the
ground, despite ample evidence to the contrary [Where is the evidence? Please state
what the evidence is.]).
According to a senior Washington official [WHO?], Mr Poroshenko,
the oligarch elected Ukraine's president in May, was anxious to hold face-to-face meetings with
Mr Putin. But he wanted other leaders in the room capable of holding Mr Putin to commitments.
Ms Merkel was the obvious choice. "The administration's view is that she's the best interlocutor
that we have in the west with Putin," says an ex-US diplomat [WHO?].
US President Barack Obama has held his own share of calls with Mr Putin, but he has largely
taken a back seat. US insiders [WHO?] say the president feels Mr Putin
was unresponsive to efforts to build a relationship. "Obama sees the world in win-win terms, Putin
sees it in zero-sum terms", says the ex-diplomat. The two have a visible lack of chemistry. In
Mr Obama's words, Mr Putin has a "kind of slouch, looking like the bored kid in the back of the
classroom".
Diplomats suspect [WHICH DIPLOMATS?] Mr Putin is surrounded
by yes-men afraid to give him the unvarnished truth. They suggest, for example, that he has been
surprised by the strength of EU unity over sanctions.
She prepares meticulously, studying maps of eastern Ukraine and poring over them in meetings
and phone calls with Mr Putin. "There are maps and charts, with roads and checkpoints", says a European diplomat [WHO?]. "She has these details. She knows about
them."
In public, Ms Merkel has not said Mr Putin has lied, but she has in private
[TO WHOM?]. "'He's lying', that's what she says to all the other leaders," says
the EU diplomat.
A partygoer [WHO?] close to Ms Merkel recalls her saying little
about the disaster. "The chancellor doesn't like to speak about something until she is sure of
her facts. But she was shaken. It was horrendous."
"The Russians just weren't credible. They got beaten", says a senior Washington official
[WHO?].
Asked why Mr Putin did not turn MH17 into an opportunity for reconciliation, a
former senior Kremlin official [WHO?] said: "Because he was insulted. He acted emotionally.
Because your side came out before anything was clear, accusing him of all sorts of things".
and on and on and on.
I've just got fed up of noting the unsubstantiated statements. And to make all this even more
annoying,each time I cut and pasted, I received the following notification off FT:
"High quality global journalism requires investment. Please share this article with others
using the link below, do not cut & paste the article."
I stopped reading the FT years ago. For the financial stuff it was quite good (!) and had
a good level for people not accompli in such matters, but it always sucked ass*
politically as it is generally to the far right of Ghengis Khan (my apologies to him as I am probably
one of the descendents of the many beautiful ladies he porked – apparently 1 in 7 of us are).
The thing is, none of this should surprise us as established journalism has only got
worse. Alternative media fortunately has grown on the back of this atrophy of the circle jerk
club. What this goes to show is that the discerning news consumer now looks elsewhere for its
news because the Pork Pie News Networks are so transparently bullshit in the extreme and even
more unapologetic when they are caught with their pants down pretending to be milking grandma's
cow in the middle of the night.
If Putin became 'emotional' every time he was insulted by the west, he wouldn't have gotten out
of bed since about 2003. Jeez, the crap these guys write.
What changed in the US foreign policy since 2015? The answer is nothing. It is still a neocon driven policy.
Notable quotes:
"... Putin on whether Alaska is "ice crimea" (play on "ice cream"): "What would you need Alaska for? It's cold there, let's not get overenthusiastic about it." ..."
"... Putin on when he would be willing to retire: "You won't live to see it." ..."
"... As Bloomberg notes, the Russian President took 'the pot calling the kettle black' to the next level by likening the US to the post-war USSR. Like the Soviet Union, Washington seeks to "impose" its will, Putin said, echoing comments made by his security council last month in a critique of US foreign policy. The US, he continued, wants "vassals" and not "allies." Putin also employed the tried and true "express willingness to negotiate then make not-so-veiled nuclear threat" strategy before reminding listeners that Stalin was not Hitler. ..."
"... U.S. "doesn't need allies, they need vassals" ..."
"... Nothing good came of U.S.S.R.'s attempts to impose will, model on other countries; U.S. also won't succeed in forcing its position on world, U.S. shouldn't be only power ..."
"... Putin says it wasn't Russia that ruined relations w/ U.S. its allies ..."
"... If U.S., allies was to rebuild ties, they must respect Russia, its interests ..."
"... Russia will continue to fight radical nationalism, nationalism is threat to Russia's unity ..."
"... Iran: Putin insisted lifting a five-year embargo on the delivery of air defence missiles to Iran did not undermine international sanctions since the Russian ban was voluntary. The US and Israel have objected to the move announced this week. Putin said he made the decision since Iran had shown "a desire to reach compromise". ..."
"... WW2 commemorations: European nations not coming to Moscow to mark the 70th anniversary of the war's end had been put under pressure by Washington, Putin claimed. ..."
"... Ukraine: The Russian president denied Russian military forces were in Ukraine and said Kiev was violating a peace accord by maintaining an economic blockade on eastern regions under the control of pro-Russian rebels. ..."
"... Economy: Putin was optimistic in his answers, highlighting gains in agriculture and a low unemployment rate. He added that the rouble was getting back on its feet following a sharp devaluation last year, and estimated a full recovery to be "somewhere in the region of two years". ..."
"... Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and the chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces also invoked the cold war in claiming that Washington has adopted a 'to the winner go the spoils' approach to international politics since the collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... Top Russian officials accused the United States on Thursday of seeking political and military dominance in the world and sought to put blame on the West for international security crises, including the conflict in east Ukraine. ..."
"... Evoking Cold War-style rhetoric, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said a drive by the United States and its allies to bring Kiev closer to the West was a threat to Moscow and had forced it to react. ..."
"... "The United States and its allies have crossed all possible lines in their drive to bring Kiev into their orbit. That could not have failed to trigger our reaction," he told an annual security conference in Moscow. ..."
"... Echoing his comments, General Valery Gerasimov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, told the meeting: "Considering themselves the winners of the Cold War, the United States decided to reshape the world to fit its needs. ..."
"... "Aiming at complete dominance, Washington stopped taking into account the interests of other countries and respect international law." ..."
"... General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said missile defense systems slated for installation in Poland and Romania represented a threat and Russia had to prepare to respond. ..."
"... "Nonnuclear powers where missile-defense installations are being installed have become the objects of priority response," Gen. Gerasimov said, referring to Poland and Romania. ..."
"... The comments came at a Moscow defense conference where a series of high-level Russian leaders repeatedly warned of the serious threats that the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization posed to modern Russia. Together, the speeches formed a fiery rebuke to the U.S. that comes as the conflict in Ukraine has brought the worst relations between Moscow and Washington since the days of the Cold War... ..."
"... In the past, Western leaders have said NATO's long-running project to build a missile defense shield in Europe aimed to deter an attack from Iran rather than from Russia. On Thursday, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said such assertions were a lie. ..."
"... "Today it is clear that the missile threat from Tehran that the U.S. and other countries of the alliance invented was a bluff," Mr. Shoigu said... ..."
"... Gen. Gerasimov also warned of Islamist extremism. He said al Qaeda had arisen from the Mujahideen that fought against Soviet forces in Afghanistan with U.S. money and support and suggested history had begun to repeat itself. ..."
"... Like him or not, he has exposed Obama and Team as the incompetent fools they are. Just go back and look and Tunisia, Lebanon, Egypt, Syria and Ukraine. Add in the Iranian deal and Yemen. That is just the Foreign Affairs book and I am sure I forgot a few. Toss in the Domestic issues and the pattern becomes clearer. ..."
"... Create chaos and instability throughout the world then re-sculpt in the Vision of the Messiah. Only I is doomed to failure leaving behind unfathomable death and destruction. ..."
"... Well, it si quite difficult to let bygones be bygones, when another WWIII is on the horizon. Why do you think Russians are now so sensitive about Hitler and WWII??? Just think! They simply do NOT want any other world war, but they know they are being pushed to such a war right now by the USA neocons and banksters. ..."
"... No American president has talked unscripted to the Americna people since Carter, even Reagan gave up the idea of talking directly and taking unscreened questions. Bush refused all contact with unscreened Americans, and Obama is the same. Cowards, and idiots. ..."
"... "Nonnuclear powers where missile-defense installations are being installed have become the objects of priority response," Gen. Gerasimov ..."
"... By trying to please Washington, Poland is taking a nuclear war timing from 15 minutes to an 1 hour, down to 5 minutes. Russia would have 5 - 10 minutes to launch on Poland to get the anti missiles out of the way first. Then consider the larger defensive launch on the West. ..."
Russian President Vladimir Putin - who TIME readers
recently voted
as the most influential person in the world - held his annual call-in/ town hall-style Q&A on Thursday, and as one might imagine,
there were some memorable moments. Previous sessions included the following classic clips (via
RT):
Putin on whether Alaska is "ice crimea" (play on "ice cream"): "What would you need Alaska for? It's cold there, let's not
get overenthusiastic about it."
Putin on when he would be willing to retire: "You won't live to see it."
Putin on John McCain's suggestion that the Russian President will go the way of Muammar Gaddafi: "McCain sat in a pit in Vietnam
for several years, anyone would go nuts after that."
Putin on astronomy, the exact time table for the end of the world, and how, if he's around then, he will most assuredly not be
afraid:
Clearly these are tough acts to follow and so, with the bar set, Putin came into Thursday's event prepared to one-up himself -
he did not disappoint.
As Bloomberg notes, the Russian President took 'the pot calling the kettle black' to the next level by likening the US to
the post-war USSR. Like the Soviet Union, Washington seeks to "impose" its will, Putin said, echoing
comments made
by his security council last month in a critique of US foreign policy. The US, he continued, wants "vassals" and not "allies." Putin
also employed the tried and true "express willingness to negotiate then make not-so-veiled nuclear threat" strategy before reminding
listeners that Stalin was not Hitler.
Here's more:
U.S. "doesn't need allies, they need vassals"
Nothing good came of U.S.S.R.'s attempts to impose will, model on other countries; U.S. also won't succeed in forcing
its position on world, U.S. shouldn't be only power
Putin says it wasn't Russia that ruined relations w/ U.S. its allies
If U.S., allies was to rebuild ties, they must respect Russia, its interests
Russia wants cooperation, willing to work w/ those who want to cooperate with Russia
Anti-Russia sanctions aren't very effective
Putin says Russia's nuclear power is nearly equal to U.S.
Russia bolstering defense to protect itself, not planning to go to war w/ anyone
Putin says confrontation isn't reason for his high public support
Russia will continue to fight radical nationalism, nationalism is threat to Russia's unity
Putin says Stalinism, Nazi regimes shouldn't be compared as Josef Stalin didn't try to exterminate entire ethnic groups
Other highlights include the following, via
The Guardian:
Iran: Putin insisted lifting a five-year embargo on the delivery of air defence missiles to Iran did not undermine international
sanctions since the Russian ban was voluntary. The US and Israel have objected to the move announced this week. Putin said he
made the decision since Iran had shown "a desire to reach compromise".
WW2 commemorations: European nations not coming to Moscow to mark the 70th anniversary of the war's end had been put under
pressure by Washington, Putin claimed.
Ukraine: The Russian president denied Russian military forces were in Ukraine and said Kiev was violating
a peace accord by maintaining an economic blockade on eastern regions under the control of pro-Russian rebels.
Economy: Putin was optimistic in his answers, highlighting gains in agriculture and a low unemployment rate. He added that
the rouble was getting back on its feet following a sharp devaluation last year, and estimated a full recovery to be "somewhere
in the region of two years".
Here's the entire spectacle:
Meanwhile, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu and the chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces also invoked the
cold war in claiming that Washington has adopted a 'to the winner go the spoils' approach to international politics since the collapse
of the Soviet Union. This, the officials claim, is evident in the US approach to the conflict in Ukraine. Here's more, via
Reuters:
Top Russian officials accused the United States on Thursday of seeking political and military dominance in the world and
sought to put blame on the West for international security crises, including the conflict in east Ukraine.
Evoking Cold War-style rhetoric, Russian Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu said a drive by the United States and its allies
to bring Kiev closer to the West was a threat to Moscow and had forced it to react.
"The United States and its allies have crossed all possible lines in their drive to bring Kiev into their orbit. That could
not have failed to trigger our reaction," he told an annual security conference in Moscow.
Echoing his comments, General Valery Gerasimov, chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, told the meeting:
"Considering themselves the winners of the Cold War, the United States decided to reshape the world to fit its needs.
"Aiming at complete dominance, Washington stopped taking into account the interests of other countries and respect international
law."
General Valery Gerasimov, Chief of the General Staff of the Russian Armed Forces, said missile defense systems slated for
installation in Poland and Romania represented a threat and Russia had to prepare to respond.
"Nonnuclear powers where missile-defense installations are being installed have become the objects of priority
response," Gen. Gerasimov said, referring to Poland and Romania.
The comments came at a Moscow defense conference where a series of high-level Russian leaders repeatedly warned of the
serious threats that the U.S. and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization posed to modern Russia. Together, the speeches formed
a fiery rebuke to the U.S. that comes as the conflict in Ukraine has brought the worst relations between Moscow and Washington
since the days of the Cold War...
In the past, Western leaders have said NATO's long-running project to build a missile defense shield in Europe aimed to
deter an attack from Iran rather than from Russia. On Thursday, Russian Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said such assertions were
a lie.
"Today it is clear that the missile threat from Tehran that the U.S. and other countries of the alliance invented was a
bluff," Mr. Shoigu said...
Gen. Gerasimov also warned of Islamist extremism. He said al Qaeda had arisen from the Mujahideen that fought against Soviet
forces in Afghanistan with U.S. money and support and suggested history had begun to repeat itself.
"Not so long ago participants in ISIL also were 'good' fighters, widely paid off by the West as 'fighters for democracy
in Syria,'" Gen. Gerasimov said. "Now they've gotten out of control," he added, saying they posed a threat to their "former employers."
* * *
As funny as it is to listen to the Russian President field random questions on subjects as diverse as cloning, astronomy, and
annexing Alaska, and while there's certainly a degree to which the Kremlin employs a bit of sophistry in an effort to paint Russia
as the tragic protagonist in a story about an evil hegemon bent on spreading Russophobia (so pretty much the exact same thing the
US did during the cold war, only in reverse), the tension between Moscow and the West is palpable and with NATO now conducting its
own snap drills in Eastern
Europe and with the very same militants to which Gen. Gerasimov is referring just a
few kilometers
away from the palace of the Russian-backed Bashar al-Assad, we wonder if and when the war of words will turn into one of bullets.
takeaction
Wouldn't it be nice to have a real leader. Take a look. What a joke.
Actually no. American's shouldn't need leaders, the fact that they feel they do should be a point of great shame to them.
CrazyCooter
I wonder if he need teleprompters for all that Q&A ...
PartysOver
Like him or not, he has exposed Obama and Team as the incompetent fools they are. Just go back and look and Tunisia, Lebanon,
Egypt, Syria and Ukraine. Add in the Iranian deal and Yemen. That is just the Foreign Affairs book and I am sure I forgot a few.
Toss in the Domestic issues and the pattern becomes clearer.
Create chaos and instability throughout the world then re-sculpt in the Vision of the Messiah. Only I is doomed to failure
leaving behind unfathomable death and destruction.
ch25061
Judging from the quickness of his wit and sophistication of his off-the-cuff responses that his IQ is Enormous... Probably
well over 160.
SeminoleBob For Truth
Hey new Crazy Cooter! I watched this via live feed. He doesn't seem to use teleprompters, always eyeing the audience and not
looking in one place. He reads stats from paper or from the computer, when answering questions and speaking to the people, eyeing
the people to the side, front, other side. It's pretty amazing. A far cry from an Obama State of the Union:
Obama: Our economy is booing!
Democrats: standing ovation and cheers
Obama: Unemployment has never been better!
DemocratsL Standing ovation and cheers
Obama: We have contained Russia and China
Democrats and Republicans: standing ovation and cheers
Love Putin or hate him, he knows his country, knows the facts and talks to he people, taking hard questions. We just don't
see that heee in America. Very sad, it's always a reminder of how far we have fallen
walküre
I think it's better to leave history alone and try and forget who hated who and for what reasons. Germans weren't exactly loved
anywhere in Europe prior to WW1 and especially not prior to WW2. There was injustice and abuse toward native Germans all across
Eastern Europe going back a couple centuries. It's just too sad when people rely on their forefathers to promote sentiment against
other groups of people. What it comes down to is the issue of money and compensation. Many Germans lost everything after two major
wars and nobody is defending their claims. I know we lost not one but two wars but c'mon, that can't be the last excuse for eternity?
Especially when the circumstances of each war are very nebulous and the origin of guilt is hard to establish - unofficially.
Unless we truly let bygones be bygones and focus on the future without running in circles and accusing each other of whatever
our grandfathers did or may have had involvement in. That can never be compensated and those that were victims are dead and frankly,
they don't care anymore.
swass
No one should be responsible for any atrocities committed by their ancestors. 100% agree. Although I know at the same time
that memories of such atrocities are often passed down many generations and evoke a lot of emotion. You're right that it is to
the benefit of everyone to recognize the distinction between something that happened a long time ago and that it doesn't make
it true today. Some blacks still feel that America somehow owes them reparations for slavery that happened more than 150 years
ago. I don't think slavery was ever right, and I don't believe that any of my ancestors ever owned slaves (that were here in the
US). Yet they still hate whitey and demand reparations from all Americans, despite the fact this happened so long ago, and that
no one alive here in the US has ever lived in slavery. They need to learn that the past is the past, just like may others throughout
the world.
datura
Well, it si quite difficult to let bygones be bygones, when another WWIII is on the horizon. Why do you think Russians
are now so sensitive about Hitler and WWII??? Just think! They simply do NOT want any other world war, but they know they are
being pushed to such a war right now by the USA neocons and banksters. Russians will now have a huge WWII Victory Day celebrations
and Western leaders will not come to see it, although it is so much important for Russians, because they wanted to remind the
world of WWII to make them understand that we must do anything to prevent any such war. But Western leaders are puppets and do
not seem to care if we all die or not. So, instead, Putin will have China, India, Vietnam etc. in these celebrations and the world
is once again divided into blocks. Interestingly, the Chinese president seems to make a fuss over WWII as well, because the Chinese
have suffered in WWII as well - in the hands of Japan and now the USA seems to be arming up Japan. And the Nazis in Ukraine. It
seems that both for Russia and China all this just opens old wounds and they take it very seriously.
"Chinese President Xi Jinping will reach Moscow on May 8 for the celebrations to mark the 70th anniversary of Russia's defeat
of Nazi Germany and 70 years since the end of World War II.. Heads of 26 countries have confirmed their attendance at the May
9 celebrations in Moscow. Putin and Xi have both, in recent months, warned against "distorting history". Chinese President Xi
Jinping said at a war commemoration event in December that "forgetting history means betrayal and denying the crime means committing
it once again." Last month, Putin ordered the organizing committee, established for the 70th anniversary celebration of the victory
of the Anti-Fascist War on May 9 in Moscow, to effectively counter worrying attempts to "rewrite history". "This is a very important
work to involve the young people in preserving historical memory about the events of the Great Patriotic War, about the key role
of the Soviet Union in the victory over Nazism," a Kremlin statement quoted Putin.
swass
Actually, I don't think that is really true. At least not something anyone can make a sweeping generalization about. While
I think the hatred of Hitler is universal in Russia (and many countries like Ukraine), Hitler wasn't trying to exterminate all
Russians. That is completely false. If that were true, Germans would have done so as they took control of villages and cities.
Nazi's did, as Putin said, target Jews and attempt to exterminate them, but not Russians in general. In any case, everyone knows
that WWII was very costly for Russia in terms of casualties. I have family in Russia and Ukraine. I'm well aware. "USA people"
are well aware. WWI was very bad for the US also. Not sure what you think your arguing exactly.
Mike Masr
Good point. I have family in St. Petersburg that lived through the nazi siege. I think Americans who also gave lives to defeat
nazism understand only to a degree. They had no nazi invasion and most here cannot comprehend 27 million lost to fighting this
evil. So yes most Americans are aware, but don't understand or comprehend the price our people paid.
This is why the war is known is the West as World War II and in Russia as "The Great Patriotic War".
swass
Sure, I agree with what you said Mike. I also agree that it's hard for most people to conceptualize that size of a loss. My
wife is helping to host Victory Day celebrations for Russians/Ukrainians/etc here in Minnesota and especially for elderly that
lived through WWII and it's aftermath there.
Mike Masr
Could you imagine our spineless leader barry in a conference like this without a teleprompter? I don't even think he would
make it 30 minutes. Forget 4 hours!!!
Jack Burton
No American president has talked unscripted to the Americna people since Carter, even Reagan gave up the idea of talking
directly and taking unscreened questions. Bush refused all contact with unscreened Americans, and Obama is the same. Cowards,
and idiots.
"Nonnuclear powers where missile-defense installations are being installed have become the objects of priority
response," Gen. Gerasimov This is a sad fact. Anti Missile systems sound defensive in nature. But they are part
of a First Stike Capability. One side launches a mass attack on the others nuclear weapons systems, then sits back and counts
on it's anti missile shield to destroy many of the surviving response missiles. Thus, the anti missile systems are MORE IMPORTANT
a first strike target than the USA's nuclear forces themselves. So Poland and others who host a vast anti ballistic missile system
for America, hoping this is all part of defense, are being lured into becoming the VERY most threatening force in the world to
Russia.
Russia then, if they seek survival, would absolutely HAVE to hit Poland first and as hard as possible at the very first hint
of an American Nuclear missile launch. This is very basic Nuclear War Fighting Strategy! Poland and others would be Russia's priority
target when the first US ICBM appear on a Russian radar screen. The Polish sites would be hit long before Russia even launched
it's response missiles. A lighting fast hair trigger will be set on Russian missiles set right on Poland's borders. Why? Because
only a fool would not see the need to eliminate the anti missile systems first and foremost.
By trying to please Washington, Poland is taking a nuclear war timing from 15 minutes to an 1 hour, down to 5 minutes.
Russia would have 5 - 10 minutes to launch on Poland to get the anti missiles out of the way first. Then consider the larger defensive
launch on the West.
Poland is fucking insane to push the nuclear trigger this tightly. They have nothing to gain, and everything to lose. Idiots!
besnook
there isn't a single politician in the entire usa who would do this, let alone the president.
watching putin and comparing him to any usa leadership, public or private, makes me cry for the usa.
Now they should be twice concerned. But, in general, color revolutions became less effective in xUSSR space as more and more people
started to understand the mechanics and financial source of "pro-democracy" (aka pro-Washington)
protesters. BTW what a skillful and shameless presstitute is this
Shaun Walker
Notable quotes:
"... Just because some Russians are paranoid about US interference, that doesn't mean they are wrong. ..."
"... The patriots are most probably a neurotic sort of reaction to what most Russians now perceive to be an attempt from NSA, CIA..and more in general of the US/EU geo-political strategies (much more of the US, of course, as the EU and Britain simply follow the instructions) to dismantle the present Russian system (the political establishment first and then the ARMY). ..."
"... Contrary to what is happening here in the west (where all media seem to the have joined the club of the one-way-thinking against Russia), some important media of that country do have a chance to criticize Putin and his policies. ..."
"... a minority can express their opinion, as long as they do not attempt to overthrow the parliament, which is an expression of Russian people. ..."
"... If you scrap off the BS from this article they do have a point, because it has been a popular tactic of a certain country to change another countries government *Cough* America *Cough* by organising protests/riots within a target country ..."
"... if that doesnt work they escalate that to fire fights and if that doesn't work they move onto say Downing a aeroplane and very quickly claiming its the other side fault without having any evidence or claim they have WMD's well anything to try to take the moral high ground on the situation even thou they caused the situation usual for selfish, arrogant and greedy reasons. ..."
"... Weren't the Maidan protests anti-democracy since they used violence to remove a democratically elected leader? Just another anti-ruskie hit piece from the Guardian. ..."
"... In the US you only get 2 choices - it may be twice as many as you get with a dictatorship but it's hardly democracy. ..."
"... Also the 'election' of the coup government was unconstitutional under article 111 of the Ukraine's own Constitution (Goggle - check for yourself). This is an undisputed and uncomfortable 'fact' which the US and the EU never mention (never) when drawn on the issue. ..."
"... A more interesting story would have been the similarities between this anti maidan group in Russia and Maidan in Kiev. Both have have their military arm, are dangerous and violent, and both very nationalistic and right wing. Both appear to have strong links to politicians as well. Such an analysis might show that Russian and Ukrainian nationalist groups have more in common than they would like to believe. ..."
"... Oh I see Russia has re-entered the media cross hairs in a timely fashion. I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks. ..."
"... And the US will continue to murder innocent civilians in the Middle East, Northern Africa and wherever else it wants to plant its bloody army boots. And will also continue to use its NGO's and CIA to foment colour revolutions in other countries, as it did in Ukraine ..."
"... Yes. Decisions should be made in Kiev, but why are they being made in Washington then? ..."
"... Potroshenko was elected with a turnout of 46%. Of this he scored say over half, hardly a majority ..."
"... "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom." ..."
"... After witnessing what happened during Maidan, and subsequently to Ukraine, I understand some Russians reluctance to see a similar scenario played out in Russia. That being said, I am also wary of vigilantism. ..."
"... As for the anti-Maidan quotes - of course that was organised. Nuland said so, for crying out loud. Kerry and others were there, Brennan was there. Of course the Western powers were partly involved. And it wasn't peaceful protests, it was violence directed against elected officials, throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen. It culminated in the burning alive of 40+ people in Odessa. ..."
"... There were students from Lviv who said they were given "college credit" for being at Maidan. ..."
"... Putinbot = someone who has a different opinion to you ..."
"... How about the reporting on the indiscriminate slaughter of Eastern Ukrainians by Kiev's government troops and Nazi battalions?? ..."
The group, which calls itself anti-Maidan, said on Thursday it would fight any attempts to
bring Russians on to the streets to protest against the government. Its name is a reference to
the Maidan protests in Kiev last year that eventually led to the toppling of former Ukraine
president Viktor Yanukovych.
"All street movements and colour revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old people
suffer first," said Dmitry Sablin, previously a long-standing MP from President Vladimir Putin's
United Russia party, who recently became a senator in Russia's upper house of parliament.
"It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened in
Ukraine," he added. "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead total fear,
total propaganda, and no freedom."
BINGO....well done. You've got Neo Nazi's, US Aid, CIA infiltrators, indiscriminate
slaughter and Nazi battalions....all in just 8 sentences. great job
I guess these are exactly the sort of people who will enrich the EU:
The State Department funding of NGOs in Ukraine "promoting the right kind of democracy" to
the tune of $5 billion is a matter of record, courtesy of "Fuck the EU" Nuland.
As for CIA involvement, the director of the CIA has visited Ukraine at least twice in 2014
- once under a false identity. If the head of the equivalent Russian organisation had made
similar visits, that would be a problem, no?
TuleCarbonari -> garethgj 16 Jan 2015 06:21
Yes, he should leave Syria to paid mercenaries. Do you really want us to believe you still
don't know those fighters in Syria are George Soros' militias? Come on man, go get yourself
informed.
jgbg -> Strummered 16 Jan 2015 06:19
You can't campaign for greater democracy, it's dangerous, it's far too democratic.
The USA cannot pay people to campaign in Russia to have the right kind of democracy i.e.
someone acceptable to the US government at the helm.
Instead of funding anti-government NGOs in other countries, perhaps the USA should first
spend the money fixing the huge inequalities and other problems in their own country.
jgbg -> Glenn J. Hill 16 Jan 2015 06:12
What???? Have you been smoking?? Sorry but your Putin Thugs are NOT funded by my
country.
I think he is referring the the NGOs which have spent large sums of money on "promoting
democracy" in Georgia and Ukraine. Many of these are funded by the National Endowment for
Democracy and the US State Department. Some have funding from organisations which are in turn,
funded by George Soros. These organisations were seen to back the Rose Revolution in Georgia
and both revolutions in Ukraine. Georgia ended up with a president who worked as a lawyer in a
US firm linked to the right wing of the Republican Party. Ukraine has a prime minister who was
brought up in the USA and a president whom a US ambassador to Ukraine described as "our
insider" (in a US Embassy cable leaked by Wikileaks).
The funding of similar organisations in Russia (e.g. Soldiers' Mothers) has been exposed
since a law was brought in, requiring foreign funded NGOs to register and publish annual
accounts.
Just because some Russians are paranoid about US interference, that doesn't mean they
are wrong.
Anette Mor -> Hektor Uranga 16 Jan 2015 06:09
He was let out to form a party and take part in Moscow mayor election. He got respectable
20%. But shown no platform other than anti- corruption. There is anti-corruption hysteria in
Russia already. People asked for positive agenda. He got none. The party base disintegrated.
The court against him was because there was a case filed. I can agree the state might found
this timely. But we cannot blaim on Russian state absence of positive position in Navalny him
self. He is reactive on current issues but got zero vision. Russia is a merit based society.
They look for brilliance in the leader. He is just a different caliber. Can contribute but not
lead. His best way is to choose a district and stand for a parliament seat. The state already
shown his is welcomed to enter big politics. Just need to stop lookibg to abroad for scripts.
The list of names for US sanction was taking from his and his mates lists. After such exposure
he lost any groups with many Russians.
Anette Mor -> notoriousANDinfamous 16 Jan 2015 05:50
I do not disregard positive side of democracy or negative side of dictatorship. I just
offer a different scale. Put value of every human life above any ideology. The west is full of
aggressive radicals from animal activists and greens to extremist gays and atheists. There is
a need to downgrade some concepts and upgrade other, so yhe measures are universal. Bombing
for democracy is equaly bad as bombing for personal power.
Anette Mor -> gilstra 16 Jan 2015 05:41
This is really not Guardian problem. They got every right to choose anti-Russian rant as
the main topic. The problem is the balance. Nobody watching it and the media as a whole
distorting the picture. Double standards are not good too. RT to stay permitted in the UK was
told to interrupt every person they interview expressing directly opposite view. Might be OK
with some theoretical conversation. But how you going to interrupt mother who just most a
child by argument in favor of the killer? The regulator said BBC is out of their reach. But
guardian should not be. Yet every material is one sided.
Asimpleguest -> romans
International Observer
''The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and Oligarchs''
PeraIlic
"Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels," said Nikolai
Starikov, a nationalist writer and marginal politician.
Never mind that he's marginal politician. This man really knows how to express himself
briefly:
An Interview with Popular Russian Author and Politician Nikolai Starikov
Those defending NATO expansion say that those countries wanted to be part of NATO.
Okay. But Cuba also wanted to house Soviet missiles voluntarily.
If America did not object to Russian missiles in Cuba, would you support Ukraine joining
NATO?
That would be a great trust-building measure on their part, and Russia would feel that
America is a friend.
imperfetto
This article contains unacceptable, apparently carefully wrapped up, distorsions of what is
happening in Russia. A piece of journalism which tell us something about the level of
propaganda that most mainstream media in our 'free' west have set up in the attempt to
organise yet another coup, this time under the thick walls of the Kremlin. This newspaper seem
to pursue this goal, as it shows to have taken sides: stand by NATO and of course the British
interests. If this implies misguiding the readers on what is taking place in Russia\Ukraine or
elsewhere (Syria for example) well...that's too bad, the answer would be. Goals justify the
means...so forget about honesty, fair play and truthfullness. If it needs to be a war (we have
decided so, because it is convenient) then... lies are not lies...but clever tools that we are
allowed to use in order to destroy our enemy.
The patriots are most probably a neurotic sort of reaction to what most Russians now
perceive to be an attempt from NSA, CIA..and more in general of the US/EU geo-political
strategies (much more of the US, of course, as the EU and Britain simply follow the
instructions) to dismantle the present Russian system (the political establishment first and
then the ARMY).
The idea is to create an internal turmoil through some pretexts (gay, feminism,
scandals...etc.) in the hope that a growing movement of protesters may finally shake up the
'palace' and foster the conditions for a coupe to take place. Then the right people will
occupy the key chairs. Who are these subdued figures to be? They would be corrupted oligarchs,
allowing the US to guide, control the Russian public life (haven't we noticed that three
important ministers in Kiev are AMERICAN citizens!)
But, from what I understand, Russia is a democratic country. Its leader has been elected by
the voters. Contrary to what is happening here in the west (where all media seem to the
have joined the club of the one-way-thinking against Russia), some important media of that
country do have a chance to criticize Putin and his policies. That's right, in a
democratic republic. But, instead, the attempt to enact another Maidan, that is a FASCIST
assault to the DUMA, would require a due response.
Thus, perhaps we could without any Patriots of the sort, that may feed the pernicious
attention of western media. There should merely be the enforcement of the law:
a minority can express their opinion, as long as they do not attempt to overthrow the
parliament, which is an expression of Russian people.
VladimirM
"The 'orange beast' is sharpening its teeth and looking to Russia," said The Surgeon, whose
real name is Alexander Zaldostanov.
Actually, he used a Russian word "зверек", not "зверь". The latter can be rendered as
"beast" but what he said was closer to "rodent", a small animal. So, using this word he just
stressed his contemptious attitude rather than a degree of threat.
These patriotic groups do seem extreme, but probably less extreme and odd than many of the
current Ukrainian crop of politicians. Here is an article from the New York Observer that will
get you up to speed....
The New York Observer:The New Ukraine Is Run by Rogues, Sexpots, Warlords, Lunatics and
Oligarchs
Robert Sandlin -> GreenKnighht
Did you forget the people in charge of the Ukraine then were Ukrainian communists.That many
of the deaths were also ethnic Russian-Ukrainians.And the ones making policy in the USSR as a
whole,in that period were mostly not ethnic-Russians.The leader was Georgian,his secret police
chief and many of their enforcers were Jewish-Soviets.And his closest helpers were also mostly
non-ethnic Russians.Recruited from all the important ethnic groups in the USSR,including many
Ukrainians.It is a canard of the Wests to blame Russia for the famine that also killed many
Russians.I'm sick of hearing the bs from the West over that tragic time trying to stir
Russophobia.
seventh
Well, you know a government is seriously in the shit when it has to employ biker gangs to
defend it.
Robert Sandlin -> seventh
Really? The government doesn't employ them. Defending the government is the job of the
police and military. These civilian volunteers are only helping to show traitors in the pay of
Westerners that the common people won't tolerate treason like happened in Ukraine, to strike
Russia.Good for them,that should let potential 5th columnists know their bs isn't wanted in
Russia.
Bulagen
I watch here in full swing manipulation of public opinion of Europeans, who imagines that
they have "democracy" and "freedom of speech". All opinions, alternative General line, aimed
at all discredit Russia in the eyes of the population of Europe ruthlessly removed the wording
that Putin bots hinder communication "civilized public." And I am even more convinced that all
this hysteria about "the problems of democracy in Russia" is nothing more than an attempt to
sell Denyen horse (the so-called democratic values) to modern Trojans (Russians).
jezzam -> Bulagen
All the wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies adhere to "so-called democratic
values". They would also greatly benefit the Russian people. Putin opposes these values purely
because they would threaten his power.
sashasmirnoff -> jezzam
The "wealthiest, healthiest and happiest societies"? That is description of whom?
I will generalize here - if by those you mean the "West" you are mistaken. The vast
majority of it's populace are carrying a huge burden of personal debt - it is the bank that
owns their houses and new autos. There is a tiny stratum that indeed is wildly wealthy,
frequently referred to as the 1%, but in fact is much less numerous.
The West is generally regarded as being the least healthy society, largely due to
horrifying diet, sedentary lifestyle, and considerable stress due to (amongst other things)
the aforementioned struggle to not drown in huge personal debt.
I'm not certain as to how you qualify or quantify "happiness", but the West is also
experiencing a mental health crisis, manifested in aberrant behaviour, wild consumption of
pharmaceuticals to treat or drown out depression, suicide, high rates of incarceration etc.
All symptoms of a deeply unhappy and unhealthy society.
One more thing - the supposed wealth and happiness of the West is predicated on the poverty
and misery of those the West colonizes and exploits. The last thing on Earth the West would
like to see is the extension of "democratic values" to those unfortunates. That would totally
ruin the World Order.
Robert Sandlin -> kawarthan
Well the Ukrainians have the corner on Black and Brown shirts.So those colors are already
taken.Blue,Red,White,maybe those?
Paultoo -> Robert Sandlin
Looking at the picture of that "patriotic" Russian biker it seems that Ukraine don´t have
the corner on black shirts!
WardwarkOwner
Why do these uprisings/ internal conflicts seem to happen to energy producing countries or
those that are on major oil/gas pipeline routes far more often than other countries?
Jackblob -> WardwarkOwner
I don't see any uprising in Canada, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, China, Mexico, the UAE, Iran,
Norway, Qatar, etc.
So what exactly is your point?
Petros -> Sotrep Jackblob
Well there is problem in Sudan Iraq Syria Libya Nigeria . you have conflicts made up by USA
to change governments and get raw materials . so ward is right . you just pretending to be
blind . in mexico ppl dying pretty much each day from corrupt people .
PullingTheStrings
If you scrap off the BS from this article they do have a point, because it has been a
popular tactic of a certain country to change another countries government *Cough* America
*Cough* by organising protests/riots within a target country
if that doesnt work they escalate that to fire fights and if that doesn't work they
move onto say Downing a aeroplane and very quickly claiming its the other side fault without
having any evidence or claim they have WMD's well anything to try to take the moral high
ground on the situation even thou they caused the situation usual for selfish, arrogant and
greedy reasons.
Jackblob -> PullingTheStrings
For some reason I do not trust you to discern the BS from the truth since your entire
comment is an act of deflection.
The truth is most Russians are very poor, more poor than the people of India. This latest
economic turmoil will make it even worse. Meanwhile, Putin and a handful of his cronies hold
all the wealth. He proved he did not care about his people when he sent the FSB to bomb Moscow
apartment buildings to start a war in Chechnya and ultimately to cancel elections.
Now Putin sees the potential for widespread protests and he is preparing to confront any
protests with violent vigilante groups like those seen in other repressive countries.
Bob Vavich -> Jackblob
Wow, this is quite an assertion that Russians are poorer than Indians. I have been to India
and I have been to Russia and I don't like using anecdotes to make a point. I can tell you
that I have never seen as much poverty as in India. I can also tell you that when I drove
through the low income neighborhood of Detroit or Houston, I felt like I was in a post
apocalyptic world. Burned out and boarded up houses. Loitering and crime ridden streets. I can
go on and on about social injustice. Regardless your comments are even more slanted than the
assertion you are making about "Pulling the Strings".
Jackblob -> Bob Vavich
I was just as surprised to learn that Indians earn more than Russians. My source for that
info comes from PBS's latest broadcast of Frontline entitled "Putin's Way".
Also, I doubt you've visited many small and lesser known cities in Russia. It's as if the
Soviet Union had just collapsed and they were forgotten. Worse, actually.
Hamdog
Weren't the Maidan protests anti-democracy since they used violence to remove a
democratically elected leader? Just another anti-ruskie hit piece from the Guardian.
We in the West love democracy, assuming you vote for the right person.
In the US you only get 2 choices - it may be twice as many as you get with a
dictatorship but it's hardly democracy.
E1ouise -> Hamdog
Yanukovych was voted out of office by the *elected parliment* after he fled to Russia. Why
don't you know this yet?
secondiceberg -> E1ouise
Excuse me, he was forced out of the country at gunpoint before the opposition "voted him
out" the next day.
Bosula -> secondiceberg
Yes. That is correct. And armed Maidan thugs (Svoboda and Right Sector) stood around the
Rada with weapons while the vote taken.
Also the 'election' of the coup government was unconstitutional under article 111 of
the Ukraine's own Constitution (Goggle - check for yourself). This is an undisputed and
uncomfortable 'fact' which the US and the EU never mention (never) when drawn on the issue.
Sourcrowd
The soviet union didn't go through some kind of denazification akin to Germany after it
disintegrated. Russia today looks more and more like Germany after WWI - full of self pity and
blaming everyone but themselves for their own failures.
Down2dirt -> Sourcrowd
I would like to hear more about that denazification of Germany and how did that go.
Since the day one the West and the GDR used nazis for their laboratories, clandestine and
civil services...State owned museums still refuse to give back artwork to their rightful
owners that were robbed during 1930-45.
I don' t condone Putin's and Russia polity (one of the most neoliberal countries), but you
appear to be clueless about this particular subject and don' t know what you are talking
about.
Bosula -> Sourcrowd
Are you thinking about Ukraine here, maybe?
Bosula
A more interesting story would have been the similarities between this anti maidan
group in Russia and Maidan in Kiev.
Both have have their military arm, are dangerous and violent, and both very nationalistic
and right wing. Both appear to have strong links to politicians as well.
Such an analysis might show that Russian and Ukrainian nationalist groups have more in
common than they would like to believe.
TuleCarbonari -> Bosula
A very important difference is the Russians are defending their elected government. The
Ukrainians were hired by the West to promote a coup d'etat against an elected government, this
against the will of the majority in Ukraine and only 3 months from general election in the
country. The coup was indeed a way of stopping the elections.
Flinryan
Oh I see Russia has re-entered the media cross hairs in a timely fashion. I wonder
what's going to happen in the coming weeks.
MarcelFromage -> Flinryan
I wonder what's going to happen in the coming weeks.
Nothing new - the Russian Federation will continue its illegal occupation of Crimea and
continue to bring death and destruction to eastern Ukraine. And generally be a pain for the
rest of the international community.
secondiceberg -> MarcelFromage
And the US will continue to murder innocent civilians in the Middle East, Northern
Africa and wherever else it wants to plant its bloody army boots. And will also continue to
use its NGO's and CIA to foment colour revolutions in other countries, as it did in Ukraine.
Kiev had its revolution. Eastern Ukraine is having its revolution. Tit for Tat.
Velska
CIF seems flooded by Putin's sock puppets, i.e. mindless robots who just repeat statements
favouring pro-Putinist dictatorship.
To be sure, there's much to hope for in the US democracy, where bribery is legal. I'm not
sure whether bribery in Russia is a legal requirement or just a fact of life. But certainly
Russia is far from democratic, has actually never been.
Bosula -> Velska
You can take your sock off now and wipe your hands clean.
secondiceberg -> Velska
What kind of democracy is the US when you have a federal agency spying on everything you do
and say? Do you think they are just going to sit on what information they think they get?
What will you do when they come knocking at your door, abduct you for some silly comment
you made, and then rendition you to another country so that you will not be able to claim any
legal rights? Let Russia look after itself in the face of "war-footing" threats from the U.S.
Fight for social justice and freedom in your own country.
cichonio
"All street movements and colour revolutions lead to blood. Women, children and old
people suffer first,"
That's why they are ready to use weapons and violence against a foe who hasn't really been
seen yet.
Also,
"Decisions should be made in Moscow and not in Washington or Brussels,"
I think decisions about Ukraine should be made in Kiev.
Bosula -> cichonio
Yes. Decisions should be made in Kiev, but why are they being made in Washington then?
How much does this compromise Kiev as its agenda is very different from the agenda the US have
with Russia. Ukraine is weakened daily with its civil war and the killing its own people, but
this conflict benefits the US as further weakens and places Russia in a new cold war type
environment.
Why are key government ministries in Ukraine (like Finance) headed by overseas nationals.
Utterly bizarre.
secondiceberg -> cichonio
So do I, by the legally elected government that was illegally deposed at gunpoint. Ukraine
actually has two presidents. Only one of them is legal and it is not Poroshenko.
Bob Vavich -> cichonio
Yes, if they are taken by all Ukrainians and not a minority. Potroshenko was elected
with a turnout of 46%. Of this he scored say over half, hardly a majority. More likely,
the right wing Western Galicia came out to vote and the Russian speaking were discouraged.
What would one expect when the new government first decree is to eliminate Russian as a second
official language. Mind you a language spoken by the majority. Makes you think? Maybe.
Probably not.
SHappens
"Personally I am a fan of the civilised, democratic intelligent way of deciding
conflicts, but if we need to take up weapons then of course I will be ready," said Yulia
Bereznikova, the ultimate fighting champion.
This quite illustrates Russians way of doing. Smart, open to dialogue and patient but dont
mess with them for too long. Once on their horses nothing will stop them.
They are ready to fight against the anti Russian sentiment injected from outside citing
Ukraine and Navalny-Soros, not against democracy.
"It is not acceptable for the minority to force its will upon the majority, as happened
in Ukraine," he added. "Under the slogan of fighting for democracy there is instead
total fear, total propaganda, and no freedom."
ploughmanlunch
After witnessing what happened during Maidan, and subsequently to Ukraine, I understand
some Russians reluctance to see a similar scenario played out in Russia.
That being said, I am also wary of vigilantism.
FlangeTube
"Pro-democracy" protests? They have democracy. They have an elected leader with a high
approval rating. Stop trying twisting language, these people are not "pro-democracy" they are
anti-Putin. That, as much as this paper tries to sell the idea, is not the same thing.
Drumming up odd-balls to defend the elected government in Russia is all well and good, but
I would think the other 75% (the ones who like Putin, and aren't in biker gangs) should get a
say too.
As for the anti-Maidan quotes - of course that was organised. Nuland said so, for
crying out loud. Kerry and others were there, Brennan was there. Of course the Western powers
were partly involved. And it wasn't peaceful protests, it was violence directed against
elected officials, throwing Molotov cocktails at policemen. It culminated in the burning alive
of 40+ people in Odessa.
Sergei Konyushenko
Btw, Shaun is always very best at finding the most important issues to raise?
FallenKezef
It's an interesting point, what happened in the Ukraine was an undemocratic coup which was
justified after the fact by an election once the previous incumbent was safely exiled.
Had that happened to a pro-western government we'd be crying foul. But because it happened
to a pro-Russian government it's ok.
I don't blame Russians for wanting to avoid a repeat in their own country.
Spaceguy1 One
The Crimea referendum "15% for" myth - Human rights investigations
The idea that only 15% of Crimeans voted to join Russia is speeding around the internet
after an article was published in Forbes magazine written by Professor Paul Roderick Gregory.
Professor Gregory has, dishonestly, arrived at his 15% figure by taking the minimum figure
for Crimea for both turnout and for voters for union, calling them the maximum, and then
ignoring Sevastopol. He has also pretended the report is based on the "real results," when it
seems to be little more than the imprecise estimates of a small working group who were
apparently against the idea of the referendum in the first place.
It appears that Professor Gregory is intent on deceiving his readers about the vote in
Crimea and its legitimacy, probably as part of the widespread campaign to deny the people of
Crimea their legitimate rights to self-determination and to demonize Russia in the process.
This is not an unexpected result. EU and US governments are going out of way to stir
people's opinion in the former Soviet republics. And they also set the precedent of conducting
at least two "revolutions" by street violence in Ukraine and a dozen - elsewhere. There are
obviously people in Russia who believe the changes have to be by discussion and voting not by
street disturbance and stone throwing.
Beckow
Reduced to facts in the article, a group in Russia said that they will come out and protest
in the streets if there are anti-government demonstrations. They said that their side also
needs to be represented, since the protesters don't represent the majority.
That's all. What is so "undemocratic" about that? Or can only pro-Western people ever
demonstrate? In a democracy a biker with a tatoo is equal to an urbane lawyer with Western
connections. That's the way democracies should work.
About funding for Maidan protesters "for which there is no evidence". This is an
interesting point. There were students from Lviv who said they were given "college credit"
for being at Maidan. And how exactly have tens of thousands of mostly young men lived on
streets in Kiev with food and clothes (even some weapons) with no support?
Isn't that a bit of circumstantial evidence that "somebody" supported them. I guess in this
case we need to see the invoices, is that always the case or just when Russia issues are
involved?
rezevici
Very sad news from Russia. If Putin or the government doesn't condemn this project of the
"patriots", if he and government doesn't react against announcement of civilian militia's plan
to use violence, I'll truly turn to observe Putin as a tsar.
The ethics of Russians will be on display.
Anette Mor -> rezevici
There are specific politicians who rejected participation in normal political process but
chosen street riots instead. The door to politics is open, they can form parties and take part
in elections. but then there is a need for a clear political and economical platform and
patience to win over the votes. These people refuse to do so, They just want street riots.
Several years public watch these groups and simply had enough. There is some edgy opposition
which attracts minority but they play fair. Nobody against them protecting and demonstrating
even when the call for revolutionary means for getting power, like communists or
national-socialists. But these who got no program other than violent riots as such are not
opposition. They still have an agenda which they cannot openly display. So they attract public
by spreading slander and rising tension. Nothing anti-democratic in forming a group of people
who confront these actions. They are just another group taking part in very complex process.
by Shaun Walker: "Maidan in Kiev did not appear just like that. Everyone was paid,
everyone was paid to be there, was paid for every stone that was thrown, for every bottle
thrown," said Sablin, echoing a frequently repeated Russian claim for which there is no
evidence.
There is evidence, but also recognition from US officials. That at least is not a secret anymore.
Is the US training and funding the Ukraine opposition? Nuland herself claimed in December
that the US had spent $5 billion since the 1990s on "democratization" programs in Ukraine. On
what would she like us to believe the money had been spent?
We know that the US State Department invests heavily -- more than $100 million from
2008-2012 alone -- on international "Internet freedom" activities. This includes heavy State
Department funding, for example, to the New Americas Foundation's...
...Commotion Project (sometimes referred to as the "Internet in a Suitcase"). This is an
initiative from the New America Foundation's Open Technology Initiative to build a mobile mesh
network that can literally be carried around in a suitcase, to allow activists to continue to
communicate even when a government tries to shut down the Internet, as happened in several
Arab Spring countries during the recent uprisings.
Indeed, Shaun! On what would you like us to believe so much money had been spent?
All of this stems from the stupid EU meddling in Ukraine.
We shouldn't get involved in the EUs regime change agenda. Time to leave the EU.
And also time for us to not get involved in any wars.
daffyddw
Thank you, thank you all, you wonderful putin-bots. I haven't enjoyed a thread so much in
ages. Bless you all, little brothers.
susandbs12 -> daffyddw
Putinbot = someone who has a different opinion to you.
Presumably you want a totalitarian state where only your views are legitimate.
Grow up and stop being childish and just accept that there are people who hold different
views from you, so what?
LaAsotChayim
Pro democracy protests?? Would that be same protests that Kiev had where Neo-nazis burned
unarmed police officers alive, or the ones in Syria when terrorists (now formed ISIS) where
killing Government troops? Are these the pro-democracy protests (all financed via "US aid"
implemented by CIA infiltrators) that the Guardian wants us to care about?
How about the reporting on the indiscriminate slaughter of Eastern Ukrainians by Kiev's
government troops and Nazi battalions?? Hey, guardian??!!
Anette Mor -> Strummered
Democracy is overrated. It does not automatically ensure equality for minorities. In Russia
with its 100 nationalities and all world religions simple straight forward majority rule does
not bring any good.
A safety net is required. Benevolent dictator is one of the forms for such safety net.
Putin fits well as he is fair and gained trust from all faith, nationalities and social
groups. There are other mechanisms in Russia to ensure equality. Many of them came from USSR
including low chamber of Russian parliament called Nationalities chamber. representation there
is disproportional to the number of population but reflecting minorities voice - one sit per
nation, no matter how big or small.
The system of different national administrative units for large and small and smallest
nationalities depending how much of autonomic administration each can afford to manage. People
in the West should stop preaching democracy. It is nothing but dictatorship of majority. That
is why Middle East lost all its tolerance. Majority rules, minorities are suppressed.
kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill
US has a separate line in the budget to pay for such "democratic" protests
kowalli -> Glenn J. Hill
U.S. Embassy Grants Program. The U.S. Embassy Grants Program announces a competition for
Russian non-governmental organizations to carry out specific projects.
So neo McCarthyism witch hunt that is rampant now is just more of the same.
Notable quotes:
"... The hearing, hosted by the House Foreign Relations Committee, was titled "Confronting Russia's Weaponization of Information," and accused Russian state broadcaster RT of weaponizing "conspiracy theories" to spread propaganda. ..."
"... One of the speakers giving testimony was former RT host Liz Wahl, who made a public spectacle of quitting Russian state media last year in an incident stage-managed by neo-con James Kirchick, himself a former employee of Radio Free Europe – a state media outlet. ..."
"... Remarking that the Internet provided a platform for "fringe voices and extremists," Wahl characterized people who challenge establishment narratives as a "cult". "They mobilize and they feel they're part of some enlightened fight against the establishment .they find a platform to voice their deranged views," said Wahl. ..."
"... Referring to comments made in January by US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) chief Andrew Lack, who characterized RT as a threat on the same level as ISIS and Boko Haram, Wahl said the comparison was justified. ..."
"... Peter Pomerantsev, of the London-based Legatum Institute, followed up by claiming that conspiracy theories were no longer "fringe" and were now driving the success of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, before lamenting the fact that conspiracy theories were challenging the "global order" and threatening to undermine global institutions. ..."
"... All three individuals that gave testimony are staunch critics of Russia, leading Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to wish "we had at least one other person to balance out this in a way that perhaps could've compared our system to the Russian system, to find out where that truth is, just how bad that is." ..."
"... Without a doubt, RT puts out pro-Russian propaganda, but it also broadcasts truths about geopolitics and U.S. foreign policy that Americans will never see on mainstream corporate networks, precisely because those networks are also engaged in propaganda. ..."
"... As linguist Noam Chomsky said, "The idea that there should be a network reaching people, which does not repeat the US propaganda system, is intolerable" to the US establishment. ..."
"... I love it when .gov shows their hand. ..."
"... Let's not forget -- as reported here many times to the credit of ZH -- that the very term "conspiracy theorist" was coined by the CIA as a means of undermining anyone who would question the government. ..."
"... Websites of Mass Instruction (are internet sites that can educate and bring significant enlightenment to a large number of humans or cause great damage to the false government-scripted MSM narrativ ..."
"... Screw them, screw all of them. I am a blogger, I do my own analysis, and try to figure out what BS they are going to try and pull next based on the information I have available to me. It makes things so clear when they start speaking so hostilely about something you are involved in when you know are doing the right thing by speaking out. She is making it seem like there is some nefarious motive behind what we do. She is the one that is dangerous, not us. She is trying to curtail free speech for god sake. ..."
"... The US Propaganda Machine has just jumped the shark. ..."
"... It jumped the shark awhile ago. Like all corrupt governments, the government of the United States accuses others of behavior the US blatantly engages in itself. A few gems regarding our own "online troll army": http://www.wired.com/2011/07/darpa-wants-social-media-sensor-for-propaga... ..."
"... And let's not forget that the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2013 included a provision to repeal the ban on government propaganda being directed at American citizens: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Defense_Authorization_Act_for_Fisc... ..."
"... Turns out Uncle Sam is a sociopathic, hypocritical asshole. EDIT: Incidentally, folks, they always tell you what they're gonna do before they do it. This is a shot across the bow; they will be coming after the internet in one way or another at some point. It's too much of a threat for them to ignore it, and it's only a matter of time. ..."
"... The pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories. Most so-called "conspiracy theorists" are really skeptics, by definition. They're skeptical of what the government tells them. They're skeptical of the claim that drug companies are really only interested in helping humankind and have no desire to make money. They're skeptical that food corporations are telling them the truth about what's in their food. And they're also skeptical of anything coming out of Washington D.C., regardless of which party happens to be in power at the time. ..."
"... So let's get this straight... they believe that Russia is responsibility for ALLLLLLL the "conspiracy theories" on the Internet? LOL! How about the one where the NSA was spying on everyone and it turned out to be true? Is Russia responsible for that one too? ..."
"... Soon we will find out that Liz Wahl works for the CIA and was specifically planted at RT in order to create the current psyop. ..."
"... US propagandists are locked in a monologue mode, speaking to themselves and of themselves all the time. The Russians are simply a canvas on which US propagandists paint a projected picture of their inner selves. This is the US world order, wallowing in the denial of the most basic reality. Who could come with the fantasy that the US supports freedom of speech? ..."
Submitted by Paul Joseph Watson via PrisonPlanet.com,
Bloggers, conspiracy theorists and people who challenge establishment narratives on the Internet were all likened to ISIS terrorists
during a chilling Congressional hearing which took place yesterday.
The hearing, hosted by the House Foreign Relations Committee, was titled "Confronting Russia's Weaponization of Information,"
and accused Russian state broadcaster RT of weaponizing "conspiracy theories" to spread propaganda.
One of the speakers giving testimony was former RT host Liz Wahl, who made a public spectacle of quitting Russian state media
last year in an incident stage-managed by neo-con James Kirchick, himself a former employee of Radio Free Europe – a state media
outlet.
Remarking that the Internet provided a platform for "fringe voices and extremists," Wahl characterized people who challenge
establishment narratives as a "cult". "They mobilize and they feel they're part of some enlightened fight against the establishment .they
find a platform to voice their deranged views," said Wahl.
Referring to comments made in January by US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) chief Andrew Lack, who characterized RT
as a threat on the same level as ISIS and Boko Haram, Wahl said the comparison was justified.
"By using the Internet to mobilize people that feel displaced, that feel like they've been on the outskirts of society, and give
them a place where they can find a sense of belonging, and maybe make a difference in their own way, and it's a problem," she said.
Wahl went on to bemoan the fact that conspiracy theorists were "shaping the discussion online, on message boards, on Twitter,
on social media," before asserting that the web had become a beacon of "disinformation, false theories, people that are just trying
to make a name for themselves, bloggers or whatever, that have absolutely no accountability for the truth, that are able to rile
up a mass amount of people online."
Committee Chairman Ed Royce then proceeded to accuse people on YouTube of using "raw violence" to advance conspiracy theories.
Peter Pomerantsev, of the London-based Legatum Institute, followed up by claiming that conspiracy theories were no longer
"fringe" and were now driving the success of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, before lamenting the fact that conspiracy theories were
challenging the "global order" and threatening to undermine global institutions.
All three individuals that gave testimony are staunch critics of Russia, leading Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to wish "we
had at least one other person to balance out this in a way that perhaps could've compared our system to the Russian system, to find
out where that truth is, just how bad that is."
Beyond the inflammatory rhetoric, the real story revolves around the fact that Washington was caught off guard by the rapid growth
of RT, with Hillary Clinton and others having acknowledged the fact that the U.S. is "losing the information war," which is why they
are now desperately trying to denigrate the Russian broadcaster.
Without a doubt, RT puts out pro-Russian propaganda, but it also broadcasts truths about geopolitics and U.S. foreign policy
that Americans will never see on mainstream corporate networks, precisely because those networks are also engaged in propaganda.
There's no mystery behind why RT has become so big – telling the truth is popular – but because Washington finds it impossible
to compete on that basis, it has been forced to resort to ad hominem attacks and ludicrous comparisons to ISIS in a desperate bid
to level the playing field.
As linguist Noam Chomsky said, "The idea that there should be a network reaching people, which does not repeat the US propaganda
system, is intolerable" to the US establishment.
_SILENCER
I love it when .gov shows their hand.
Fukushima Sam
You fucking bastards, you give me a version of events like "9/11" and the "Boston Marathon Bombing" that actually seem to jibe
with reality and maybe then I'll stop being a "conspiracy theorist".
LetThemEatRand
Let's not forget -- as reported here many times to the credit of ZH -- that the very term "conspiracy theorist" was coined
by the CIA as a means of undermining anyone who would question the government.
nmewn
It should also be pointed out that Bernanke is now "a blogger" at the Brookings Institute and one helluva "conspiracy theorist"
in his own right...lol.
I guess some nutters are more equal than others ;-)
Supernova Born
Websites of Mass Instruction (are internet sites that can educate and bring significant enlightenment to a large number
of humans or cause great damage to the false government-scripted MSM narrative)
clymer
Thanks RT for not thoroughly vetting that bitchy douche. Now if we could all go back to CNN like the nice little drones that
we are... (Lauren Lyster ended up at CBS - WTF is with RT hand-picking these opportunists - reminds of ironically of Yuri Bezmenov
speaking of hiring jouralists: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLqHv0xgOlc
-- they didn't learn from their own program)
Captain Debtcrash
Screw them, screw all of them. I am a blogger, I do my own analysis, and try to figure out what BS they are going to try
and pull next based on the information I have available to me. It makes things so clear when they start speaking so hostilely
about something you are involved in when you know are doing the right thing by speaking out. She is making it seem like there
is some nefarious motive behind what we do. She is the one that is dangerous, not us. She is trying to curtail free speech for
god sake.
Turns out Uncle Sam is a sociopathic, hypocritical asshole. EDIT: Incidentally, folks, they always tell you what they're
gonna do before they do it. This is a shot across the bow; they will be coming after the internet in one way or another at some
point. It's too much of a threat for them to ignore it, and it's only a matter of time.
BLOTTO
I've post previously...but always a good read.
'What is a "conspiracy theorist?
The pejorative "conspiracy theorist" is meant to demean and ridicule skeptics of official stories. Most so-called "conspiracy
theorists" are really skeptics, by definition. They're skeptical of what the government tells them. They're skeptical of the claim
that drug companies are really only interested in helping humankind and have no desire to make money. They're skeptical that food
corporations are telling them the truth about what's in their food. And they're also skeptical of anything coming out of Washington
D.C., regardless of which party happens to be in power at the time.
People who are not skeptics of "official stories" tend to be dull-minded. To believe everything these institutions tell you
is a sign of mental retardation. To ask questions, on the other hand, is a sign of higher intelligence and wisdom.'
It's hilarious watching in the land of the free as they try to find a way around the First Amendment to ban RT.......
Gaius Frakkin
So let's get this straight... they believe that Russia is responsibility for ALLLLLLL the "conspiracy theories" on the
Internet? LOL! How about the one where the NSA was spying on everyone and it turned out to be true? Is Russia responsible for
that one too?
So who are the REAL paranoid, deranged, scared out of their wits about losing power, conspiracy theorists?
Element
Like glib acceptance of any flaky old crap that drifts into your transom, you mean?
oh ... that's completely different ...
Right?
--
If people buy into nonsense and BS stories of their own volition, this is hardly going to be changed at the stroke of a pen
of a legislative chamber all agreeing on some policy of state action to ban or else accept some aspect of public discourse.
cro_maat
Soon we will find out that Liz Wahl works for the CIA and was specifically planted at RT in order to create the current
psyop.
TheFourthStooge-ing
US propagandists are locked in a monologue mode, speaking to themselves and of themselves all the time. The Russians are
simply a canvas on which US propagandists paint a projected picture of their inner selves. This is the US world order, wallowing
in the denial of the most basic reality. Who could come with the fantasy that the US supports freedom of speech?
Sorry, US citizens, your propaganda techniques are too old by now. Most people know them. Especially the Russians:
The translator of this Russian article notes that America throwing more resources into the info war is a sign of Russia's victories
and America's agony in this theater of operations.
EU Observer: EU mulls response to Russia's information war
The Netherlands is funding a study on how the EU can fight back against Russia's "information
war", in one of several counter-propaganda initiatives.
The Dutch-sponsored study was launched in the New Year by the European Endowment for Democracy
(EED), a Brussels-based foundation.
But little happened until the Netherlands stepped in with the EED grant after a passenger plane,
flight MH17, was shot down over east Ukraine killing 193 Dutch nationals and 105 other people.
Evidence indicates Russia-controlled rebels caused the disaster using a Russia-supplied rocket
system.
But Russian state media have tried to sow suspicion the Ukrainian air force did it in order to
prompt Western intervention in the conflict
Denmark, Estonia, Lithuania, and the UK are drafting an informal paper on how EU institutions
and Nato can co-ordinate "strategic communications"
Its foreign ministry spokesman, Karlis Eihenbaums, told this website that around 15 EU states
back the project and that the news broadcasts should be available in Russia if they can get past
its "jamming system".
But Riga is trying to play down expectations of a quick result.
"I don't think we can come to an agreement among the 28 [EU leaders] to come up with a new TV
station in Russian. Euronews is already doing news in Russian, so it'll be difficult to get an additional
channel", Latvian PM Laimdota Straujuma told press in the Latvian capital on Wednesday (7 January).
Well-funded Russian broadcasters, such as RT, have hired big names, including former CNN anchor
Larry King, and air programmes in English, French, German, and Spanish as well as Russian.
Their work is backed up by pseudo-NGOs.
Putting the Dutch grant in perspective, the British think-tank, Chatham House estimates the Russian
"NGO" component alone is worth $100 million a year.
Western media have caught Russian media using fake pictures and fake witness accounts of alleged
Ukrainian atrocities.
Eihenbaums noted that any EU news channel "must be attractive, but with accurate information
it must not be a propaganda organ".
He cited RFE/RFL, a US-funded broadcaster, and the BBC as models because they do both Ukraine-critical
and Russia-critical stories.
###
If you can't smell the excrement off that, then get thee to a medic!
Now, considering the piece above, try not to hold back a large guffaw for this one!
Know that when they speak of
Kyrzbekistan, they're not just stenographers, they're incompetent stenographers.
Take what
they say, turn it upside down, and you'll have a better take on reality.
THE MERKEL MYSTERY. I, like many, thought, when the Ukraine crisis began, that German Chancellor
Merkel would prove to be key in settling it. This has not proved to be the case at all; in fact
she often throws more fuel on the fire. I believe that
Gilbert Doctorow may have
the answer. In essence, he believes that Berlin dreams the "pre-WWI dream of Mitteleuropa"
with cheap, docile workers in Poland, Ukraine and the others forever. Of course, it hasn't worked
out very well, but that, he thinks, was the plan. There was no "End
of History" after all; a rebirth of history it seems.
This is two years old Foreign Affair article, which actually can be viewed as a precursor of the current anti-Russian
witch hunt. Foreign Affairs firmly belong to the neocons swamp, so be prepared ;-). As usual for such publications as Foreign
Affairs comments are more interesting that the article. BTW the resistance to the neoliberal empire led by the USA can probably
be mentioned as a part of Russian national idea. In this sense Stanislav Belkovsky observation that "the search for Russia's
national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea
is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." Putin simply became expression of this resistance to neocolonial rule, much like Gandy became in India
before.
The US neoliberal elite is fixated on the idea of destroying Russia much like Roman elite was fixated on the idea of destroying
Carnage.
This analysis is from 2015 or two years from now. It Is interesting to compare it (along with comments) with he current situation
and new developments...
Notable quotes:
"... "the search for Russia's national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." ..."
"... Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union. ..."
"... it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. ..."
"... This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created. ..."
"... Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. ..."
"... let us examine your assertion for a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator.. ..."
"... By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We Americans have blood on our hands! ..."
"... My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq ..."
"... Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our latest target. ..."
"... The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it, and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide, largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money they were usually cajoled into borrowing. ..."
"... I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified Western interference. ..."
"... He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). ..."
"... You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it ..."
"... Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently, Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers ..."
How did twenty-first-century Russia end up, yet again, in personal rule? An advanced industrial country of 142 million people, it
has no enduring political parties that organize and respond to voter preferences.
The military is sprawling yet tame; the immense
secret police are effectively in one man's pocket. The hydrocarbon sector is a personal bank, and indeed much of the economy is increasingly
treated as an individual fiefdom. Mass media move more or less in lockstep with the commands of the presidential administration.
Competing interest groups abound, but there is no rival center of power. In late October 2014, after a top aide to Russia's president
told the annual forum of the Valdai Discussion Club, which brings together Russian and foreign experts, that Russians understand
"if there is no Putin, there is no Russia," the pundit Stanislav Belkovsky observed that "the search for Russia's national idea,
which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin."
Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment
remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life
expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union.
But Russia is now beset by economic stagnation alongside high inflation, its labor productivity remains dismally low, and its
once-vaunted school system has deteriorated alarmingly. And it is astonishingly corrupt. Not only the bullying central authorities
in Moscow but regional state bodies, too, have been systematically criminalizing revenue streams, while giant swaths of territory
lack basic public services and local vigilante groups proliferate.
Across the country, officials who have purchased their positions for hefty sums team up with organized crime syndicates and use
friendly prosecutors and judges to extort and expropriate rivals. President Vladimir Putin's vaunted "stability," in short, has turned
into spoliation. But Putin has been in power for 15 years, and there is no end in sight. Stalin ruled for some three decades...
Jamil M Chaudri
Interesting but slanted and one-sided, myopic analysis. Why would the 1.6 billion Muslims spread over three continents, accept
Mr Kotkin's concept of "World Order".
There is no World Order; it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. It is
an effort by the colonialists to prolong their hegemony over Muslim lands and people.
One of the biggest mistakes Pakia made was to join the West in destroying Soviet Russia. A bi-polar world was a better world
than a unipolar world, where the west is destroying Muslim nations (one after the other).
This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created.
Jamil M Chaudri -> JACK RICE
Before the invasion (and total destruction) of Afghanis there was no daily violence in Afghania. Before the invasion (and total
destruction) of Iraqia, there is no daily violence in Iraqia. Before Pakia allied itself with America (leading to the further
debasement of an evolving state) there were no (practically) daily suicide bombings in Pakia. Before America decided to aid Ethiopia
(and joined it) in destroying Somalia, the state of Somalia had a pretty vibrant civil society, and no gangster precipitate violence.
Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity
state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. Before America decided to Destroy the Syrian
State, by leading a crusade (guised as a push for, of all things, DEMOCRACY), Syria was a fast-developing state. ......... This
list could be stretched back to the days of Pilgrim Fathers. But I am hoping you follow the drift.
If the hat fits, wear it! If the shoe fits, wear them!! From the top of the head to the sole of the shoes, everything is dyed
deep in BLOOD.
At the moment with more than 2'000'000 deaths in Iraqia, and more than 250'000 deaths in Afgania and more than 10'000 deaths
in Pakia,
Jamil M Chaudri -> BAKER ALLON
Take some smelling salts, and read what happened in North and South America, when whole nations were destroyed by the colonialists,
and kept in RESERVATIONS; their children were taken to missions for conversion to Christianity, their dwellings were destroyed.
Read about the Trail of Tears, when a whole nation was banished from their ancestral lands. Read about 2'000'000 deaths in Afghania.
For you destruction of HUMAN LIFE is less important than destruction of statues? Shows the kind of person you are. There are many
clips available on the internet showing the destruction of Human Life in most parts of Iraqia(including Mosel) by the blood thirsty
invaders. Harping about statues and museums, and totally callus about human lives (millions of them) you are indeed a museum piece!
Go back to the shelf you have come off.
Renee Barclay -> Jamil M Chaudri • 19 days ago
Bush was a moron but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam was a murderous dictator. And Saddam's sons were known rapists
and murderers.
Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites turned on each other after Bush eliminated Saddam and that's the simple fact. And they're STILL killing
each other to this day. Google it.
Jamil M Chaudri -> Renee Barclay
I do not have to Google such assertions. They are non sequitur, in nature. Even then, let us examine your assertion for
a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for
we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator..
By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the
Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We
Americans have blood on our hands!
My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.
On your non-sequitur. If a good man has evils sons, does the man become evil? Again, Sunnis turned against Shias; so what?
About the American Civil War, Google says: Though the number of killed and wounded in the Civil War is not known precisely, most
sources agree that the total number killed was between 640,000 and 700,000.
There was no civil war in Iraq before American Invasion and destruction of Iraqi State and Society. Thus, America is TOTALLY
responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.
Vivienne Perkins -> Jamil M Chaudri
Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is
the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our
latest target.
The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko
govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern
provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it,
and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United
States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide,
largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money
they were usually cajoled into borrowing.
As for political corruption, I don't know much about Russian levels of corruption, but I know a lot about the total corruption
of our system of government and the evisceration of all of our civil liberties, subsequent to the passage of the so-called and
mis-named Patriot Act. By the provisions of the NDAA, any US citizen can be picked up and held in indefinite military detention
without charge or trial. I wonder how much worse is Russia than that?
And since Citizens United, nearly every legislator in our Congress is absolutely bought and paid for. Maybe we should leave
Russia alone and think about how to restore what we once thought of as a democratic system of governance h ere in the United States.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
One thing has nothing to do with the other. While I'm in agreement with you on the Ukrainian matter, lets not forget that Vladimir
Putin's Russia also has a very big problem with Islamic extremists in their territories as does a number of countries around the
world .
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
I'm not sure I get your point. Maybe we should think about why the West has trouble with Islamic extremists. Might it be because
for over a hundred years the Western powers have chosen the dictatorial rulers of Muslim countries, drawn their boundaries, supported
leaders or removed them at its own whim (as S. Hussein in Iraq, the Shah in Iran, Mubarak in Egypt, Khaddafi in Libya, etc.) and
inserted Israel into Arab territory for its own reasons. Has it ever occurred to you that if Muslim nations had been allowed to
develop according to their own preferences, we might possibly have a more rational and peaceful world today? I can't prove this
obviously, but it does seem clear that the more the US attacks and interferes, the more hostile the Muslims become. As an American
I would like to see my country behave in a more decent way and with less self-serving propaganda.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
And was America to blame for Jihadi activity thousands of years ago before its existence? Do you not realize that their actvity
is given full sanction, and indeed commands them to go to war with the Kufar? Currently, there is Jihadi activity in countries
stretching from India toChechnya and in several African countries. They all have to do with Islamic aggression against there neighbors
and almost nothing to do with " western imperialism'
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
"Thousands of years ago" Islam did not exist. I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified
Western interference.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
Islam first appeared on the world stage in about the year 620 AD.
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
Which means it is now 1,395 years old (not thousands) and I doubt that it's legitimate to equate its idea that it was entitled
to make forcible conversions to the present situation, which seems to me to have arisen fairly recently as a response to Western
meddling in Arab lands.
Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37
The answer to the one of your question is a LOWD Yes: It was the FIRST CRUSADES that brought religiosity into the GAME OF KINGS:
enlarging kingdoms at the expense of neighbouring kingdoms. The First Crusade was indeed nearly a thousand years ago. The only
differences between JIHAD and CRUSADE are:
1. CRUSADERS are more cruel, surreptitious, deceptive, etc.
2. Crusades have no moral component, the goal is political supremacy. Jihad is about moral supremacy, justice and equality.
Since you bring religion into the mix, try to re-read the bible (the new and the old, both of which) PRESCRIBE DEATH to heretics
and non-believers. Here is a action in pursuance of such biblical dictate:
"A Spanish missionary, Bartolome de las Casas, described eye-witness accounts of mass murder, torture and rape. 2 Author Barry
Lopez, summarizing Las Casas' report wrote:
"One day, in front of Las Casas, the Spanish dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3000 people. 'Such inhumanities and barbarisms
were committed in my sight,' he says, 'as no age can parallel....' The Spanish cut off the legs of children who ran from them.
They poured people full of boiling soap. They made bets as to who, with one sweep of his sword, could cut a person in half. They
loosed dogs that 'devoured an Indian like a hog, at first sight, in less than a moment.' They used nursing infants for dog food."
3
Currently there is CRUSADING MISSIONARY activity in all non-Christian lands by religious warrior-fanatics (wearing the piety
hat of the Christian hue). Read about the recent reaction local Hindu population in India against such activity.
First the Western nations used the RELIGION hat to subdue MORALLY SUPPERIOR but less BLOOD-THURSTY peoples; When that strategy
ceased to work they rolled out a second version called DEMOCRACY. The second is as much of a sham as the earlier attempt.
Even internal to American, the "down trodden" masses are beginning to cry foul. The prevailing poverty rate in America is staggering.
See the figures in most authoritative publications.
Reading does bring enlightenment. That is why I read from diverse sources.
jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri
Yes that's why millions of people are seeking to emigrate by any means necessary., and not the reverse. I can assure the "
impoverished masses" in the west are in a lot better shape than they are in your neck of the woods.
But I think your trying to deflect once again. That Christianity ad well as other religions has had a bloody past, is no revelation,
band I for one am no big fan. But steps have been taken since than, to temper the extremism that brought on these acts. One does
not read of to many beheadings and or sucide bombings in the name of Jesus, Buddha, or Shiva. This is not meant as a criticism
of Muslim people per se, or a put down of that particular of the world, it is merely mea by as a critique of some of the problems
that I, and countless others see in the Islamic faith. There's no question that the leadership in the west, can be very corrupt
and rapacious at times, but I think the general trend is towards an attempt at understanding and accommodation. Now, I think it
is time for the Muslim world to attempt some sort of inner dialogue where they take steps towards a dressing and correcting their
own problems. I enjoyed our discussion, and I hope we will be able to part in civil terms. Best wishes.
Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37
First of all let me disabuse your notion of "my neck of the woods". In one of my earlier posting I have clearly stated that
I am a proud American Citizen, living in a well wooded and watered part of the US of A. But as my country has gone wayward (essentially
in pursuit of the buck) from its charter I am trying to bring America back to its promise.
You have levied accusation against me of "deflecting" arguments. Let me tell you what your problem is: you want to levy unsubstantiated
accusations against others, and when they, with references, confront your falsehoods and soothsaying, you accuse the other of
"deflecting" or "hijacking" the discussion! Pot calling the kettle black? Man, it is you who is unable to stick to the argument
– but then, as you have no argument, of course, you have nothing to stick to. Your statements are based on your penchant for name-calling,
bad mouthing, others. Perhaps your mind-set suggests that with such strategies, you will be the last "man standing" (?).
.
In my first posing on Dr Kotkin's article, I simply wanted to repudiate the so called "World Order". By what right have Great
Britain and France seats at the Security Council. By definition in a democratic set-up, every unit has equal rights. What Dr Kotkins
calls a World Order is therefore a sham democracy, created to benefit the West.
Under the guise of bringing democracy to Iraqia, Afghania, Libya, the Yemen, etc. the west is simply trying to prolong its
hegemony. It is a sham democracy they impose on weak nations. Pliant regimes are being installed, and millions of people being
killed. Any voice that is raised against such pseudo-democracy is silenced by force, by the thugs installed as "democratic" regimes.
This is western patronage.
Presently, you read about EXCESSES done by the lunatic fringes of the Muslim Society (these groups, by the way, were created
by and operate with the support of CIA – so that organisations like HOMELAND Security can get more dollars), because 90% of the
news buzz is created by American media.
The USA is a state trying to improve its democracy on a continuous basis. In 1777 did America treat all people the same way?
When was the promulgation of freedom (of SLAVES) passed in America? When was the voting rights acts passed? Are the economic developments
of the Whites and Blacks (call it Afro-American, if you like) even TODAY at the same level?
I wish you and your, the very best. May Allah have his mercy on us as a Nation, so that we can STANDING TOGETHER still sing
the Star-Spangled Banner.
jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri
We currently have a black president, black attorney General, a black director of homeland security, and a black national security
adviser. That's not to mention the various statutes and regulations on the books that are strictly enforced to prevent discrimination
and instances of inequality. Are these details of such small consequence? With regards to your observations of so called regime
change, I am in complete agreement with you . I against such interventions wether it is Cairo or Kiev. It is up to the indigenous
population of that country to determine the course that their country should take, and not have to be subjected to outside interference.
However, I have to ask the question, do you really think that the CIA bears the sole responsibility for the for the existence
of these groups? Could it be that they're trying to co opt them and use them for their own purposes? Im almost certain that the
CIA didn't create the leaders who take certain texts and use them for recruitment purposes. All I'm suggesting is that we need
to hear more from the moderate elements, and that some sort of reformation May have to be undertaken, much in the way it occurred
in other religions. ( Christianity for example )
Finally, Im not sure where you got the idea that I " have a penchant of bad mouthing others" but nevertheless, I sincerely
apologize if I have offended you in anyway. You are a worthy opponent, and it's been an enlightening discussion to say the least.
Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri
Stephen Kotkin is a Jewish shill for the oligarchy.
Jamil M Chaudri -> Robert Munro
I only knew Dr Kotkin's background as a historian; his religious affiliation did not concern me. The only part of his writing
that offended me was the concept of "World Order". I do not accept nor do I want anybody else to be suppressed by the unbridled-capitalists.
Unfortunately, to exercise unbridled capitalism, the underpinning is provided by exercise of power over others. It is the RAPE
OF NATIONS.
Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri
I've read Kotkin before. He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). However, from his background and affiliations,
it's very possible that his mind-set matches that of Baruch Levy, below..........
"The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races,
by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will
everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship.
In this New World Order, the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments
of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the
Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the
resources of the state.
Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have
all the property of the whole world in their hands."
Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx (1879), printed in La Revue de Paris, p. 574, June 1, 1928
Given the 3000 year history of Judaism, its religious writings, its possession of nuclear weapons and control of the American
government/economy/media, it seems appropriate to take such claims very seriously.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
Here's some more "fantasy" about your barbaric cult............
http://www.haaretz.com/news/di...
http://www.richardsilverstein....
http://www.btselem.org/downloa...
BTW- All three of the links above are to Jewish web sites - civilized Jews.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
It is the cult for which you shill that is the disease.......for 3000 years you have been a malignant cancer trying to metastasize
throughout our world.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
The disease that sickens and, hopefully, will kill your cult is truth...............
"To communicate anything with a Goy about our relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what
we teach about them, they would kill us openly." (found in both the Torah and Talmud)
Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
Of course, of course. But then, there are even some people with eyes who do not see. For them it is a blessing, for they see
no evil. It is really a mental condition due to aberrant eye. By the way, Yogi Berra is supposed to have said: "You can observe
a lot just by watching". But perhaps street-walkers in Europe do not watch, because their game is different, and they are enjoying
the benefits of their game.
I do not want to shatter your innocence, but slaves are not seen by street-walkers: Slaves are consigned to SLAVE QUARTERS.
Present day, western world has built slave quarters in India, Pakistan, Sudan, Congo, etc. This is where the Western Worlds Slaves
Live. If you want to read the whole report goto: http://www.globalslaveryindex....
India has the largest number of slaves in the world (14 million).
Mind you, A related concept is "wage slavery". To understand this concept requires sensibility.
Yet another but even more subtle concept is "mental slavery". A variation of this is known as the Stockholm Syndrome. Mental
Slavery is a totally abject state where the person ceases to think eigenartig but assumes the likes and hates of the person/people
who have programmed him/her.
From the last line in your post, I can only assume that deep programming has been done. Programmed consciousness is virtual
reality.
ARJAN VELLEKOOP -> Jamil M Chaudri
So, now the west should care for what governments in other countries do with their citizens? I thought you hated imperialists!
Your reference to India is just idiotic. Why should the west feel responsible for the condition India is in?! You are probably
going to say the colonial past. Well, thats bullcrap since there are plenty of countries which have grown, since their liberty,
into decent and reasonably wealthy states. The west is not responsible for India, India is responsible for itself.
Particularly the Middle Eastern countries have shown behaviour to shift the blame away from their own failures. Maybe it have
to do with their Islamic background, in which so many actions are based/motivated from religious basis. And of course the prophet
is never wrong, so it must be the fault of a imperialist outsider.
Get real. The countries which contain these so called slaves, can make their own choices. They dont have to be part of the
capitalist terrible world order. They can make the better choice like you and other believe it. Sadly enough, that idea is, apparently,
not that good. Because good ideas sell itself.
Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street
walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And
specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern
Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing
REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it.
There is absolutely no religious underpinning for State Government in any of the states where Muslims are in Majority. The
Saudi Family are are there because of America; the present rule in Iran is a reaction to America (re-)installing the 2-cent "SHAH"
to rule the Iranian Nation. The present excesses of the Iranian state are essentially defense postures against America intransigence,
and mechanisms to harm (and if possible) destroy the Iranian Nation.
I experience reality every day. If you would just come out of your VIRTUAL REALITY, you might by just watching observe some.
I know deprogramming is not easy, and self-deprogramming is even more difficult.
All the same, I suggest that you wake up and smell the Coffee; if not try some smelling salts.
Robert Munro -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
And we have read the drivel of thousands of shills for the oligarchy and the Zionist/Fascist cult...............such as yourself.
Ivan Night Terrible
Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin
America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently,
Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated
promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth
nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas
from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as
to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline
to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers.
But two points:
One, it was soon enough clear that the Europeans, having used South Stream as leverage in the sanctions game, probably
overplayed their hand. The day following the announcement they were struggling for composure so far as I can make out.
Two, Putin stunned everyone with his decision from Ankara, where he stood with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to announce that South
Stream would be rerouted to serve the Turkish market. Think about this: It is more than a new deal; there are significant political
and diplomatic implications in this, given Turkey's traditional alliances, its EU aspirations and so on.
i think the Saker forgot that Russia is also a neoliberal country. The last time I checked Russia keeps its foreign
reserves in US.
Notable quotes:
"... I am often asked if the US and Russia will go to war with each other. I always reply that they are already at war. Not a war like WWII, but a war nonetheless. This war is, at least for the time being, roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% kinetic. But in political terms the outcome for the loser of this war will be no less dramatic than the outcome of WWII was for Germany: the losing country will not survive it, at least not in its present shape: either Russia will become a US colony again or the AngloZionist Empire will collapse. ..."
"... First, led by Obama, all the leaders of the West declared urbi et orbi and with immense confidence that Assad had no future, that he had to go, that he was already a political corpse and that he would have no role whatsoever to play in the future of Syria. ..."
"... Second, the Empire created a "coalition" of 59 (!) countries, which failed to achieve anything, anything at all: a gigantic multi-billion dollar " gang that could not shoot straight " led by CENTCOM and NATO, which only proved its most abject incompetence. In contrast, Russia never had more than 35 combat aircraft in Syria at any time and turned the course of the war (with a lot of Iranian and Hezbollah help on the ground). ..."
"... Finally, when the US realized that putting Daesh in power in Damascus was not going to happen, they first tried to break up Syria (Plan B) and then tried to create a Kurdish statelet in Iraq and Syria (Plan C). All these plans failed, Assad is in Russia giving hugs to Putin , while Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corp Quds Force Commander General Soleimani is taking a stroll through the last Syrian city to be liberated from Daesh . ..."
"... This is becoming comical. The US media, especially CNN, cannot let a day go by without mentioning the evil Russians, the US Congress is engaged in mass hysteria trying to figure out which of the Republicans and the Democrats have had more contacts with the Russians, NATO commanders are crapping their pants in abject terror (or so they say!) every time the Russian military organizes any exercise, the US Navy and Air Force representatives regularly whine about Russian pilots making "unprofessional intercepts", the British Navy goes into full combat mode when a single (and rather modest) Russian aircraft carrier transits through the English Channel – but Russia is, supposedly, the "weak" country here. ..."
"... The truth is that the Russians are laughing. From the Kremlin, to the media, to the social media – they are even make hilarious sketches about how almighty they are and how they control everything. But mostly the Russians are laughing their heads off wondering what in the world the folks in the West are smoking to be so totally terrified ( at least officially ) by a non-existing threat. ..."
"... That western political leaders are seeking safety in numbers. Hence the ridiculously bloated "coalitions" and all the resolutions coming out of various European and trans-Atlantic bodies. Western politicians are like schoolyard nerds who, fearing the tough kid, huddle together to look bigger. Every Russian kid knows that seeking safety in numbers is a surefire sign of a scared wimp. In contrast, the Russians also remember how a tiny nation of less than 2 million people had the courage to declare war on Russia and how they fought the Russians hard, really hard. I am talking about the Chechens of course. Yeah, love them or hate them – but there is no denying that Chechens are courageous. Ditto for the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The Russians were impressed. And even though the Nazis inflicted an unspeakable amount of suffering on the Russian people, the Russians never deny that the German soldiers and officers were skilled and courageous. There is even a Russian saying "I love/respect the courageous man in the Tatar/Mongol" (л юблю молодца и в татарине). So Russians have no problem seeing courage in their enemies. ..."
"... US: the US strategy is equally simple: Use the Russian "threat" to give a meaning and a purpose to the Empire, especially NATO. Continue and expand the "petty harassment" against Russia on all levels. Subvert and weaken as much as possible any country or politician showing any signs of independence or disobedience (including New Silk Road countries) ..."
"... It is important to stress here that in this struggle Russia is at a major disadvantage: whereas the Russians want to build something, the Americans only want to destroy it (examples include Syria, of course, but also the Ukraine or, for that matter, a united Europe). Another major disadvantage for Russia is that most governments out there as still afraid of antagonizing the Empire in any way, thus the deafening silence and supine submissiveness of the "concert of nations" when Uncle Sam goes on one of his usual rampages in total violation of international law and the UN Charter. This is probably changing, but very, very slowly. Most world politicians are just like US Congressmen: prostitutes (and cheap ones at that). ..."
"... The biggest advantage for Russia is that the US are internally falling apart economically, socially, politically – you name it. With every passing year the once most prosperous United States are starting to look more and more like some backwater Third World country. Oh sure, the US economy is still huge (but rapidly shrinking!), but that is meaningless when financial wealth and social wealth are conflated into one completely misleading index of pseudo-prosperity. This is sad, really, a country that ought to be prosperous and happy is being bled to death by the, shall we say, "imperial parasite" feeding on it. ..."
"... Amount of idiocy of current American authorities and society as whole is amazing. Looking in the past I can't see such desperate clowns as those on the top: McCains, Clintons, Haleys at last Trump! and hundreds of powerful people who can not distinguish between Austria and Australia, all of those stupid askin to punish Russia! So, I'd like to be mistaken, but I'm not optimistic about the future of our planet and I believe it is the "West" who can change something, not Russia, we are staying near the last red line and not gonna retreat. ..."
"... The financial dynasties which have ruled the western world for the last few centuries are evidently in the final stages of degeneration. Their ancestors were at least intelligent people whatever one might think about their ethics. So far as I am able to tell we are now being ruled by people who only have one notable characteristic, arrogance. They are to the western world what Caligula and Nero were to Rome, poison and delusion. I doubt very much that there will be a happy outcome. ..."
"... Inherited wealth on a massive scale is the problem, when individuals are born with enough wealth to confer political influence even over the wealthiest countries, then democracy can only be a sham. Bill Gates (of all people) was on the right track a few years ago when he declared that he was only going to pass down to his descendants enough money to live comfortably for one lifetime. Until some sort of sane cap is placed on inherited wealth then we will continue to be ruled by people with mediocre ability advised by second-rate intellectuals who are prepared to tell them what they want to hear. ..."
"... Lavrov, like Putin, has made a practice of dropping such truth-bombs on the US regime. And who can blame them, if the US regime insists on handing them the ammunition, time after time? ..."
"... I hope too, but currenly a ball is on your side of a field. We (Russians) actually can't retreat any more. If US will keep its "soft harrasment" the result could be extremly bad. And I see no reason to expect sane behaviour from US establishment. They are insane, what about a majority of american people ? I don't know. But its must "come from below" of US society, not from us, we already did. ..."
"... At that time (early 1990s) this was almost a consensus among many professionals on Russian side that this was possible. By 1999 it became clear that situation degenerated to such a degree that no compromise was possible anymore. Part of it was rooted in the nature of re-emerging genuine Russian state, the lion share, however, was in neocons completely subverting US foreign policy. ..."
"... First, there is no war. The real/unreal "war" continues because it serves the powers that be on both sides. On the US side, it serves as an excuse for an enormous "defense" spending that now exceeds defense spending of the rest of the world combined. This massive flow of taxpayers' money into the pockets of the few who feed at the Pentagon trough needs some "justification", and "evil Russia" serves admirably. ..."
"... On the Russian side, Putin's generally anti-US foreign policy, which is supported by the great majority of Russians, "justifies" his grip on power despite the fact that the internal policies of his government, which also enrich very few at the expense of the rest, are very unpopular. ..."
"... The US never wages a real war on anyone who has WMDs. North Korea is the most up-to-date example of this. The very fact of the US invasion of Iraq or bombing of Syria showed that the US was 100% sure that neither Saddam nor Assad have WMDs. The US elites, dumb and shortsighted though they are, understand deep down that they need to stay alive to enjoy their loot. As Ukrainian saying puts it, "coffins have no pockets". ..."
"... But there is a stiff competition: the US Empire is going downhill, like the British Empire a century ago, and the Chinese are happy to have Russia spearhead the resistance (which they quietly support in many ways). I doubt that Chinese domination would be any more benign than shameless and brutal US domination, but we'll see soon enough: in 20-30 years the US will be relegated to the position of a second-tier power. I am not even sure that Chinese domination would be in Russia's interests any more than the US domination, but US elites in their incredible stupidity forced Russia to ally with China and all anti-American forces in the world, as diverse as Iran and North Korea. ..."
"... The US is losing so fast due to blind greed and overall degradation of its elites, who keep biting off a lot more than they can chew and behaving like it's 1990. But the ultimate win would be more China's than Russia's, unless Russia manages to create a tri-polar world with China and India, which would be certainly better than any unipolar world can possibly be. ..."
"... Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four 'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people, most of the time are better off left alone. ..."
"... Multipolar is just that – leave exercise of power and responsibility as close to the local situation as possible. Brussels telling Poland who should be a TV presenter, or Washington deciding what people in rural Hungary should read is idiotic. What's the point of all this busy-body behaviour? It is always justified by some slogans about preventing 'human rights violations'. Right. We have seen the results – a lot more people have died and suffered because of 'humanitarian' interventions than from anything else in the last 20+ years. ..."
"... I do find the current rapprochement between Russia and the major Moslem states amusing. It goes beyond Turkey and Iran, Moscow is working all of them, Egypt, Sudan, I suspect it is a clever attempt to beat US at its own game – US has spent about four decades arming and unleashing any Islamic force it could find against Russians (and Slavs in general), using methods that were beyond brutal and hypocrisy that eventually backfired. Maybe turning it around is a good strategy. It is inconsistent, but when you fight extreme stupidity, often the only thing that works is to use more stupidity ..."
"... "The white knight in shining armor" actually turned out to be a cowardly greedy coyote who unsuccessfully tried to fit into a stolen somewhere sheep skin. ..."
I am often asked if the US and Russia will go to war with each other. I always reply that
they are already at war. Not a war like WWII, but a war nonetheless. This war is, at least for
the time being, roughly 80% informational, 15% economic and 5% kinetic. But in political terms
the outcome for the loser of this war will be no less dramatic than the outcome of WWII was for
Germany: the losing country will not survive it, at least not in its present shape: either
Russia will become a US colony again or the AngloZionist Empire will collapse.
In my very first column for the Unz Review entitled " A Tale of Two World Orders " I
described the kind of multipolar international system regulated by the rule of law that Russia,
China and their allies and friends worldwide (whether overt or covert) are trying to build and
how dramatically different it was from the single World Hegemony that the AngloZionists have
attempted to establish (and almost successfully imposed upon our suffering planet!). In a way,
the
US imperial leaders are right , Russia does represent an existential threat, not for the
United States as a country or for its people, but for the AngloZionist Empire, just as the
latter represents an existential threat to Russia. Furthermore, Russia represents a fundamental
civilizational challenge to what is normally called the "West" as she openly rejects its
post-Christian (and, I would add, also viscerally anti-Islamic) values. This is why both sides
are making an immense effort at prevailing in this struggle.
Last week the anti-imperial camp scored a major victory with the meeting between Presidents
Putin, Rouhani and Erdogan in Sochi: they declared themselves the guarantors of a peace plan
which will end the war against the Syrian people (the so-called "civil war", which this never
was) and they did so without inviting the US to participate in the negotiations. Even worse,
their final
statement did not even mention the US, not once. The "indispensable nation" was seen as so
irrelevant to even be mentioned.
To fully measure how offensive all this is we need to stress a number of points:
First, led by Obama, all the leaders of the West declared urbi et orbi and with
immense confidence that Assad had no future, that he had to go, that he was already a political
corpse and that he would have no role whatsoever to play in the future of Syria.
Second, the Empire created a "coalition" of 59 (!) countries, which failed to achieve
anything, anything at all: a gigantic multi-billion dollar " gang that could not shoot straight "
led by CENTCOM and NATO, which only proved its most abject incompetence. In contrast, Russia
never had more than 35 combat aircraft in Syria at any time and turned the course of the war
(with a lot of Iranian and Hezbollah help on the ground).
Next, the Empire decreed that Russia was "isolated" and her economy "
in tatters " – all of which the
Ziomedia parroted with total fidelity . Iran was, of course, part of the famous "
Axis of Evil ," while
Hezbollah was the " A-Team of terrorism ". As
for Erdogan, the AngloZionists tried to overthrow and kill him. And now it is Russia, Iran,
Hezbollah and Turkey who defeated the terrorists and will call the shots in Syria.
Can you imagine how totally humiliated, ridiculed, and beaten the US leaders feel today?
Being hated or resisted is one thing, but being totally ignored – now that hurts!
This is becoming comical. The US media, especially CNN, cannot let a day go by without
mentioning the evil Russians, the US Congress is engaged in mass hysteria trying to figure out
which of the Republicans and the Democrats have had more contacts with the Russians, NATO
commanders are crapping their pants in abject terror (or so they say!) every time the Russian
military organizes any exercise, the US Navy and Air Force representatives regularly
whine about Russian pilots making "unprofessional intercepts", the British Navy goes into
full combat mode when a single (and rather modest) Russian aircraft carrier transits through
the English Channel – but Russia is, supposedly, the "weak" country here.
Does that make sense to you?
The truth is that the Russians are laughing. From the Kremlin, to the media, to the social
media – they are even make hilarious sketches about how
almighty they are and how they control everything. But mostly the Russians are laughing their
heads off wondering what in the world the folks in the West are smoking to be so totally
terrified ( at least
officially ) by a non-existing threat.
You know what else they are seeing?
That western political leaders are seeking safety in numbers. Hence the ridiculously bloated
"coalitions" and all the resolutions coming out of various European and trans-Atlantic bodies.
Western politicians are like schoolyard nerds who, fearing the tough kid, huddle together to
look bigger. Every Russian kid knows that seeking safety in numbers is a surefire sign of a
scared wimp. In contrast, the Russians also remember how a tiny nation of less than 2 million
people had the courage to declare war on Russia and how they fought the Russians hard, really
hard. I am talking about the Chechens of course. Yeah, love them or hate them – but there
is no denying that Chechens are courageous. Ditto for the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The
Russians were impressed. And even though the Nazis inflicted an unspeakable amount of suffering
on the Russian people, the Russians never deny that the German soldiers and officers were
skilled and courageous. There is even a Russian saying "I love/respect the courageous man in
the Tatar/Mongol" (л юблю
молодца и в
татарине). So Russians have no problem seeing
courage in their enemies.
... ... ...
Russia: the Russian strategy towards the Empire is simple:
Try to avoid as much as
possible and for as long as possible any direct military confrontation with the US because
Russia is still the weaker side (mostly in quantitative terms). That, and actively preparing
for war under the ancient si vis pacem para bellum strategy. Try to cope as best can be
with all the "petty harassment": the US still has infinitely more "soft power" than Russia and
Russia simply does not have the means to strike back in kind. So she does the minimum to try to
deter or weaken the effects of that kind of "petty harassment" but, in truth, there is not much
she can do about it besides accepting it as a fact of life. Rather than trying to disengage
from the AngloZionist controlled Empire (economically, financially, politically), Russia will
very deliberately contribute to the gradual emergence of an alternative realm. A good example
of that is the Chinese-promoted New Silk Road which is being built without any meaningful role
for the Empire.
US: the US strategy is equally simple: Use the Russian "threat" to give a meaning and a
purpose to the Empire, especially NATO. Continue and expand the "petty harassment" against
Russia on all levels. Subvert and weaken as much as possible any country or politician showing
any signs of independence or disobedience (including New Silk Road countries)
Both sides are using delaying tactics, but for diametrically opposite reasons: Russia,
because time is on her side and the US, because they have run out of options.
It is important to stress here that in this struggle Russia is at a major disadvantage:
whereas the Russians want to build something, the Americans only want to destroy it (examples
include Syria, of course, but also the Ukraine or, for that matter, a united Europe). Another
major disadvantage for Russia is that most governments out there as still afraid of
antagonizing the Empire in any way, thus the deafening silence and supine submissiveness of the
"concert of nations" when Uncle Sam goes on one of his usual rampages in total violation of
international law and the UN Charter. This is probably changing, but very, very slowly. Most
world politicians are just like US Congressmen: prostitutes (and cheap ones at that).
The biggest advantage for Russia is that the US are internally falling apart economically,
socially, politically – you name it. With every passing year the once most prosperous
United States are starting to look more and more like some backwater Third World country. Oh
sure, the US economy is still huge (but rapidly shrinking!), but that is meaningless when
financial wealth and social wealth are conflated into one completely misleading index of
pseudo-prosperity. This is sad, really, a country that ought to be prosperous and happy is
being bled to death by the, shall we say, "imperial parasite" feeding on it.
At the end of the day, political regimes can only survive by the consent of those they rule.
In the United States this consent is clearly in the process of being withdrawn. In Russia it
has never been stronger. This translates into a major fragility of the US and, therefore, the
Empire (the US are by far the biggest host of the AngloZionist imperial parasite) and a major
source of staying power for Russia.
All of the above applies only to political regimes, of course. The people of Russia and of
the US have exactly the same interests: bringing down the Empire with the least amount of
violence and suffering as possible. Like all Empires, the US Empire mostly abused others in its
formative and peak years, but as any decaying Empire it is now mostly abusing its own people.
It is therefore vital to always repeat that an "Empire-free US" would have no reason to see an
enemy in Russia and vice-versa. In fact, Russia and the US could be ideal partners, but the
"imperial parasites" will not allow that to happen. Thus we are all stuck in an absurd and
dangerous situation which could result in a war which would completely destroy most of our
planet.
For whatever it's worth, and in spite of the constant hysterical Russophobia in the US
Ziomedia, I detect absolutely no sign whatsoever that this campaign is having any success with
the people in the US. At most, some of them naively buy into the "the Russians tried to
interfere in our elections" fairy tale, but even in this case this belief is mitigated by "no
big deal, we also do that in other countries". I have yet to meet a American who would
seriously believe that Russia is any kind of danger. I don't even detect superficial reactions
of hostility when, for example, I speak Russian with my family in a public place. Typically, we
are asked what language we are speaking and when we reply "Russian" the reaction normally is
"cool!". Quite often I even hear "what do you think of Putin? I really like him". This is in
severe contrast with the federal government whom the vast majority of Americans seem to hate
with a passion.
To summarize it all, I would say that at this point in time of the US-Russian war, Russia is
wining, the Empire is losing and the US is suffering. As for the EU it is "enjoying" a much
deserved irrelevance while being mostly busy absorbing wave after wave of society-destroying
refugees proving, yet again, the truth of the saying that if your head is in the sand, your ass
is in the air.
This war is far from over, I don't even think that we have reach its peak yet and things are
going to get worse before they get better again. But all in all, I am very optimistic that the
Axis of Kindness will bite the dust in a relatively not too distant future.
Reading texts from Saker is a sip of fresh water in a rotten pool. His words "things are
going to get worse before they get better again" could come true, but also could never happen
cause current Cold War very likely may be converted to very hot one. And they will not get
better. The common West doing everything for it.
Saker said "Russians laughing" – yes, we do sometimes, but when we hear last news from
"soft harassment" like attacks on our sportsmen, diplomats or reporters we are clenching our
fists. We do not feel bad on western people, but this is not the case when to talk about the
country as whole, counry which being determinated by its tops. There is a limit to any
patience.
Amount of idiocy of current American authorities and society as whole is amazing. Looking in
the past I can't see such desperate clowns as those on the top: McCains, Clintons, Haleys at
last Trump! and hundreds of powerful people who can not distinguish between Austria and
Australia, all of those stupid askin to punish Russia!
So, I'd like to be mistaken, but I'm not optimistic about the future of our planet and I
believe it is the "West" who can change something, not Russia, we are staying near the last
red line and not gonna retreat.
The financial dynasties which have ruled the western world for the last few centuries are
evidently in the final stages of degeneration. Their ancestors were at least intelligent
people whatever one might think about their ethics. So far as I am able to tell we are now
being ruled by people who only have one notable characteristic, arrogance. They are to the
western world what Caligula and Nero were to Rome, poison and delusion. I doubt very much
that there will be a happy outcome.
Inherited wealth on a massive scale is the problem, when individuals are born with enough
wealth to confer political influence even over the wealthiest countries, then democracy can
only be a sham. Bill Gates (of all people) was on the right track a few years ago when he
declared that he was only going to pass down to his descendants enough money to live
comfortably for one lifetime. Until some sort of sane cap is placed on inherited wealth then
we will continue to be ruled by people with mediocre ability advised by second-rate
intellectuals who are prepared to tell them what they want to hear.
The biggest threat to our continued existence is not the strength of the Russian
federation but its weakness. Outspent and outnumbered hugely by the EU alone (whatever the
paid liars in Washington say) their only credible defence in the event of open warfare is
their nuclear arsenal, we can only hope they never need to use it.
Can you imagine how totally humiliated, ridiculed, and beaten the US leaders feel today?
Being hated or resisted is one thing, but being totally ignored – now that hurts!
Saker could have added to the list of self-inflicted defeats for the US regime and foreign
policy elites their ongoing humiliation over North Korea, where they have endlessly tried to
insist that the US has some kind of special right for its enemies not to be allowed even to
possess weapons that could potentially attack them, and postured and menaced in response to
the NK government's defiance, but have so far been forced to accept that they can do nothing
about it, as Pat Buchanan discusses
today . And as Pat points out, this is a situation entirely of the US regime's making
– by operating a sustained policy of military aggressions, and especially of attacking
those that foolishly rely upon submission to their demands (Gaddafi) and undermining any
agreements they make (Iran), they created the situation in which going all out for a nuclear
deterrent became the most rational course available for NK.
The US might yet choose to wage another war of aggression in order to avoid yet another
self-inflicted humiliation, or an unintended war might start as a result of the US regime's
irresponsible military buildup and provocations, but if either happens, the costs will be
colossal and any gains trivial, "win" or lose.
But mostly the Russians are laughing their heads off wondering what in the world the
folks in the West are smoking to be so totally terrified (at least officially) by a
non-existing threat.
That's not the only gross absurdity in US sphere society that Russians are laughing at,
apparently:
Lavrov, like Putin, has made a practice of dropping such truth-bombs on the US regime. And
who can blame them, if the US regime insists on handing them the ammunition, time after
time?
Over the past thirty years, at least, the US regime has ensured that the truth is
anti-American.
"US would have no reason to see an enemy in Russia and vice-versa. In fact, Russia and the US
could be ideal partners"
This is the dream I had when the "wall" came down. But instead, I saw that my belief that the US government was a "white knight in shining
armor" acting for "truth, justice, and the american way" and to "make the world safe for
democracy" was only a dream, a foolish fantasy. I had been deceived. I had wanted to be an Army general and was a Distinguished Graduate of the USMA. Now I
resigned my commission as an Army officer, took off my uniform, and extended my arm to stop
the tanks.
I hope to live to see the day of a multipolar world in peace. It is possible, but it must
come from below. An "American Spring" is essential. I hope my complacent countrymen will see
this before it is too late.
Now I resigned my commission as an Army officer, took off my uniform, and extended my
arm to stop the tanks.
I took off the uniform of Soviet Army officer more than 30 years ago. Was an officer in
anti aircraft division.
I hope to live to see the day of a multipolar world in peace. It is possible, but it
must come from below.
I hope too, but currenly a ball is on your side of a field. We (Russians) actually can't
retreat any more. If US will keep its "soft harrasment" the result could be extremly bad. And
I see no reason to expect sane behaviour from US establishment. They are insane, what about a
majority of american people ? I don't know. But its must "come from below" of US society, not
from us, we already did.
This is the dream I had when the "wall" came down.
At that time (early 1990s) this was almost a consensus among many professionals on Russian
side that this was possible. By 1999 it became clear that situation degenerated to such a
degree that no compromise was possible anymore. Part of it was rooted in the nature of
re-emerging genuine Russian state, the lion share, however, was in neocons completely
subverting US foreign policy.
their only credible defence in the event of open warfare is their nuclear arsenal
Sir, don't repeat discredited propaganda memes. If you don't trust me, which is fine, read
opinion on the man who has decades of working and serving with this very NATO, not to mention
his deep knowledge on military-diplomatic terms of Russia.
At the end of the day, political regimes can only survive by the consent of those they
rule. In the United States this consent is clearly in the process of being withdrawn.
That really is the nub of the matter there. The elites are fumbling about, trying to save
themselves in the USA and their unearned perquisites. As the Saker says, the imperial
parasite is sucking dry what should be a wealthy and peaceful land.
Too much depends on China, and I don't trust them.
The godless money grubbers may chose to ally with the (((Anglos))) and stab Russia in the
back just like Russia allied with the (((Brits))) to stab Germany in the back.
The world pivots on the Yellow Peril.
except for the reference to Conchita Wurst, of which I'm unfamiliar. I was curious
enough to google it, and now I can't unsee that. Dear God, I need a brainwash.
LOL, tell me about that – same here. I heard of IT (This, that, creature etc.) but at
some point of time I took a look. Boy, was I sorry:))
America's Founding was also marked by this great contradiction. It was, in one sense, a
universal republic committed to principles that rose above tribe or nation.
..
Given that the Naturalization Act of 1790 allowed for Whites only, the concept of a
universal republic was, obviously, not entirely universal.
As for Anglo-Americans, their importation of large numbers of black Africans to toil as
slaves and then huge numbers of 'ethnic' European immigrants -- especially the feisty and
pushy Jews -- led to increasing pressure to transform America into a 'proposition'
There was already a steady supply of White slaves (indentured servants) coming from the
UK. The importation of Africans was mainly in Jewish hands, as the (((reviled))) Tony Martin
pointed out. This ramped up considerably after Anthony Johnson, a Black landowner who was a
former indentured servant, sued and won the right to keep slaves for life. Ironically, his
two white slaves were also included in the judgement. So much for White privilege.
At one point the US was so confident that they managed to "fix" the middle east, that they
were talking about "pivot" to Asia, which was nothing more than a veiled threat to China that
they are next on the list to be "fixed". So the pivot to Asia didn't really happen, as it
turns out the middle east wasn't really "fixed", not the way the wanted it anyway. Then the
fiasco in Ukraine happened where they had to turn their attention to Russia.
May I be so bold as to suggest few names for the new US policies towards Russia after 2014
– using "pivot to Asia" as a guidance? How about:
1. Somersault to Russia? Or,
2. Cartwheel to Russia? Or maybe,
3. Backflip to Russia?
Note that all 3 suggested choices try to point out to the acrobatic skills needed in order
for the missions named after them to succeed.
First, there is no war. The real/unreal "war" continues because it serves the powers that be
on both sides. On the US side, it serves as an excuse for an enormous "defense" spending that
now exceeds defense spending of the rest of the world combined. This massive flow of
taxpayers' money into the pockets of the few who feed at the Pentagon trough needs some
"justification", and "evil Russia" serves admirably.
On the Russian side, Putin's generally
anti-US foreign policy, which is supported by the great majority of Russians, "justifies" his
grip on power despite the fact that the internal policies of his government, which also
enrich very few at the expense of the rest, are very unpopular.
The US never wages a real war
on anyone who has WMDs. North Korea is the most up-to-date example of this. The very fact of
the US invasion of Iraq or bombing of Syria showed that the US was 100% sure that neither
Saddam nor Assad have WMDs. The US elites, dumb and shortsighted though they are, understand
deep down that they need to stay alive to enjoy their loot. As Ukrainian saying puts it,
"coffins have no pockets".
But there is a stiff competition: the US Empire is going downhill, like the British Empire
a century ago, and the Chinese are happy to have Russia spearhead the resistance (which they
quietly support in many ways). I doubt that Chinese domination would be any more benign than
shameless and brutal US domination, but we'll see soon enough: in 20-30 years the US will be
relegated to the position of a second-tier power. I am not even sure that Chinese domination
would be in Russia's interests any more than the US domination, but US elites in their
incredible stupidity forced Russia to ally with China and all anti-American forces in the
world, as diverse as Iran and North Korea.
The US is losing so fast due to blind greed and
overall degradation of its elites, who keep biting off a lot more than they can chew and
behaving like it's 1990. But the ultimate win would be more China's than Russia's, unless
Russia manages to create a tri-polar world with China and India, which would be certainly
better than any unipolar world can possibly be.
Instead of AngloZionist Empire, I like just to call it the "Confederacy."
1. The Southern Generals strut around the globe like they own the place.
2. We're a resource-based economy with a free trade mantra.
3. Slave labor camps litter the Empire (though only in prisons in Confederate Homeland).
4. Hyper Police State.
5. Everyone defines themselves by their skin color.
"The same "hegemon with allies/vassals" as it is now, only in that case divided in
three"
Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four
'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people,
most of the time are better off left alone.
Is that so hard to understand? Why should people in Washington (or Moscow, Beijing,
Brussels, ) be intimately involved with how others live their lives, with their fights and
alliances? Knowledge always dissipates with distance, and most of the 'masters of the
universe' are not that smart to start with.
Multipolar is just that – leave exercise of power and responsibility as close to the
local situation as possible. Brussels telling Poland who should be a TV presenter, or
Washington deciding what people in rural Hungary should read is idiotic. What's the point of
all this busy-body behaviour? It is always justified by some slogans about preventing 'human
rights violations'. Right. We have seen the results – a lot more people have died and
suffered because of 'humanitarian' interventions than from anything else in the last 20+
years.
I do find the current rapprochement between Russia and the major Moslem states amusing. It
goes beyond Turkey and Iran, Moscow is working all of them, Egypt, Sudan, I suspect it is a
clever attempt to beat US at its own game – US has spent about four decades arming and
unleashing any Islamic force it could find against Russians (and Slavs in general), using
methods that were beyond brutal and hypocrisy that eventually backfired. Maybe turning it
around is a good strategy. It is inconsistent, but when you fight extreme stupidity, often
the only thing that works is to use more stupidity
"The same "hegemon with allies/vassals" as it is now, only in that case divided in
three"
Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four
'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people,
most of the time are better off left alone.
Peter's is the apocalyptic view made famous by Orwell. He may be right, it may all unravel
and Oceania, Eurasia & Eastasia run a classic 3-power calculus of shifting alliances in a
struggle for control of the "hinterlands". Not at all impossible, but certainly not what the
proponents of the multipolar world want.
The idea is much more than the notion that most people want to "be left alone". The
Multipolar world as it is actually being constructed by its proponents, from its monetary
structures to its security, commercial and trade regimes, is precisely the attempt to prevent
that Orwellian development in the face of Western decline. Their foundational tenet is that
Globalization as a world-historical trend is here to stay (for at least the next few
generations), and the "compartmentalization" of the world into alliances and hegemonies as
historically occurred is no longer a viable option. The 3 Orwellian powers are all nuclear
now, and the #1 priority is to mitigate the risk of war between them. Best to do that by
dissolving them into a matrix of commercial and developmental programs that they'd be loathe
to destroy.
EG: Though Russia considers both China and Iran "strategic partners", there is no formal
alliance with either of them, and there won't be. Alliances cannot be "forbidden", but the
countries that have signed onto the multipolar world program view alliances with
suspicion.
"Kupchan provides a detailed strategy for striking a bargain between the West and the
rising rest by fashioning a new consensus on issues of legitimacy, sovereignty, and
governance."
Assuming he even knows the least thing about what the multipolar world is trying to do,
Peter's view is that their attempt will fail. Maybe so.
To "fashion a new consensus on issues of legitimacy, sovereignty, and governance" requires
that the professional criminal class that grabbed the remains of Western power a decade and a
half ago has been forced to let go. If not, the world indeed faces an abyss.
Orwell's vision is but one of the possibilities. Another is Armageddon. Yet another is a
"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen in the
near and medium term. Things being what they are, it may even be the best we can hope
for.
"The white knight in shining armor" actually turned out to be a cowardly greedy coyote who
unsuccessfully tried to fit into a stolen somewhere sheep skin.
"Russians shouldn't have raped all those German women"
Yeah, that's the problem – WWII was all about Russians raping. Not about Germans
attacking east and murdering tens of millions. How many Russian women do you think Germans
'raped'? Or maybe they just killed them, 'ubermensch', right. It doesn't seem to bother you
and that is sick.
Or this vignette:
The regime in Moscow has one and only one goal: own hold on power"
While, of course the 'regimes' in Washington or Berlin spend all their time worrying about
the well-being of their citizens. You really cannot be that dumb, or can you?
I made mistake responding to you, you are hopeless.
"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen
in the near and medium term.
I think we already have it, except I don't think West has failed yet. Or it has in a way,
the process of failing goes on, but the consequences have not been felt much in the West
yet.
I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world'. Maybe some
ISIS fanatics have the same dream, but they are not in a position to achieve it. West has
'managed' it very poorly: mindless interventions, wars, migrants, hypocrisy, threats and
blackmail.
The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations. Russia or China really don't
care that much who wins the elections in Portugal, or what regional papers write in Hungary
– US seems to be obsessed with it. And the only justification that Western defenders
offer when pressed is that 'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is
obvious nonsense and only elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it (peterAUS?). What is
really going on is that West has over-reached and can barely handle its own problems. So they
scream 'Russians are coming' to distract, or to prolong the agony. Russians are not coming,
they don't care in 2017, they can barely control their huge territory today. More you see
squealing and lying in the Western media, more it shows that they have not much else to work
with.
You only mentioned one. You always only mention one, the same one.
To be fair, Germans started the war and killed a lot more people in the east. They
deserved what they got.
how about ALL those regimes (Washington, Berlin, Moscow) first and foremost care about
own survival and own success
You say that now because you got caught – again – with a one-sided biased
view. If people have to remind you that rules should be applied equally, you are either too
far gone or have issues with basic logic. Try to be objective to start with, not after you
produce a biased rant and people point it out to you.
Actually it was the West, especially the USA which created political Islam to fight Soviets. They essentially created Osama bin
Laden as a political figure. The USA is also the main protector of Saudi Arabia were Wahhabism is the official religion. Then
they tried to partition Russia by supporting Chechen islamists and financed the jihadist groups in Russia (especially in Dagestan).
Obama administration flirted with Muslim Brotherhood and unleashed the wars in Lybia and Siria were islamists were trying to
take down the legitimate governments.
So Political Islam despite its anti-Western message used as a tool as a patsy for the destabilization of "unfriendly", the dogs
that could be unleashed when weapons and money started to flow.
Now it looks like boomerang returns home.
Notable quotes:
"... I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development. ..."
"... Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized. ..."
"... The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers. It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. ..."
"... To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States. None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. ..."
"... If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably lost. ..."
FPR:Your book
The Sword of the Prophet was published back in 2002, yet here we are-15 years later-still scratching our heads over this problem.
Defeating Jihad you wrote ten years ago, and yet we are still fumbling around in the dark. It seems like we don't have the
ability to say what is right and what is wrong. We've lost the ability we had had during the Cold War to say out way is better than
their way . . .
ST: I'm afraid the problem is deeper than that. It is in the unwillingness of the ruling elite in the Western world to come to
grips with the nature of Islam-as-such. There is this constant tendency by the politicians, the media and the academia to treat jihadism
as some sort of aberration which is alien to "true" Islam. We had an example of that in 2014, when President Obama went so far as
to say that ISIS was "un-Islamic"! It is rather curious that the President of the United States assumes the authority of a theologian
who can pass definite judgments on whether a certain phenomenon is "Islamic" or not. Likewise we have this constant repetition of
the mantra of the "religion of peace and tolerance," which is simply not supported by 14 centuries of historical experience. What
I've tried to emphasize in both those books you've mentioned, and in my various other writings and public appearances, is that the
problem of Islam resides in the core texts, in the Kuran and the Hadith , the "Traditions" of the prophet of Islam,
Muhammed. This is the source from which the historical practice has been derived ever since. The problem is not in the jihadists
misinterpreting Islam, but rather in interpreting it all too well. This mythical "moderate Islam," for which everybody seems to be
looking these days, is an exception and not the rule.
In answer to your question, I'd say that "scratching one's head" is-by now-only the phenomenon of those who refuse to face reality.
Reasonable people who are capable of judging phenomena on their merits and on the basis of ample empirical evidence, are no longer
in doubt. They see that the problem is not in the alleged misinterpretation of the Islamic teaching, but rather in its rigorous application
and literal understanding. I'm afraid things will not get better, because with each and every new jihadist attack, such as the
Charlie Hebdo slaughter in Paris a year ago, or again in Paris last November, or the New Year's Eve violence in Germany, we are
witnessing-time and over again-the same problem. The Islamic mindset, the Islamic understanding of the world, the Muslim Weltanschauung
, world outlook, is fundamentally incompatible with the Western value system and the Western way of life.
FPR:. . . It seems obvious, regarding Islam, that its "freedom of religion" is impacting other people, and it's dictated to
do so-it must go out and fight the infidels. And that's where we have the disconnect. Maybe there is some traction to the statement,
as you put it, that fundamentalism reflects a far more thorough following of Islam, and that it is simply incompatible with the Constitution?
ST: It is inevitable, because if you are an orthodox, practicing, mainstream Muslim, then you necessarily believe in the need
to impose Sharia as the law of the land. Sharia is much more than a legal code. It is also a political program, it is a code of social
behavior, it is the blueprint for the totality of human experience. That's why it is impossible to make Sharia compatible with the
liberal principle of "live and let live": it is inherently aggressive to non-Islam. In the Islamic paradigm, the world is divided
in the Manichean manner, black-and-white, into "the World of Faith," Dar al-Islam , literally "the world of submission," and
"the World of War, Dar al-Harb .
It is the divine duty of each and every Muslim to seek the expansion of Dar al-Islam at the expense of Dar al-Harb
until the one true faith is triumphant throughout the world. In this sense the Islamic mindset is very similar to Bolshevism.
The Bolsheviks also believed that "the first country of Socialism" should expand its reach and control until the whole world has
undergone the proletarian revolution and has become one in the march to the Utopia of communism. There is constant inner tension
in the Islamic world, in the sense that for as long as non-Islam exists, it is inherently perceived as "the other," as an abomination.
In that sense, Muslims perceive any concession made by the West-for instance in allowing mass immigration into Western Europe-not
as a gesture of good will and multicultural tolerance, but as a sign of weakness that needs to be exploited and used as a means to
an end.
FPR:The Roman Catholic Church has its Catechism which decides the issues of doctrine. Until there's an Islamic "catechism"
which can say "no, this is no longer the right interpretation, this is not what it means any more"-and I don't think this would be
a short-term thing, because you'd still have the splinter groups dissenting against the "traitors"-but is this the only way to go
to the center of theological jurisprudence in the Islamic world?
ST: The problem is twofold. First of all, there is no "interpretation" of the Kuran . Classical Islamic sources are adamant
that the Kuran needs to be taken at face value, literally. If it says in Sura 9, verse 5, "fight the infidels wherever you find them,
and let them go if they convert," or if it says time and over again that the choice for a non-Muslim is to accept Islam, or to live
as a second-class citizen-the dhimmi -under Islamic supremacy, or else to be killed it is very hard to imagine what sort of
authority in the Islamic world would be capable of saying "now we are going to relativize and soften the message."
The second part of the problem is that there is no single authority in Islam. It is not organized in a hierarchical way like the
Roman Catholic Church, where if the Pope speaks ex cathedra his pronouncements are obligatory for all Catholics everywhere.
Islam is a diffused religion, with various centers of learning and various ullema who may or may not agree on certain peripheral
details. Yet any any one of them who'd dare say "look, now we rally need to reinterpret the fundamental sources, the Kuran
and the Hadith, so as to make it compatible with the pluralist society"-they'd immediately be condemned as heretics. We've seen attempts
at reform in the past. In the end the orthodox interpretation always prevails, because it is-sadly-the right interpretation of the
core texts. With neither the hierarchy capable of imposing a new form of teaching on the faithful, nor the existence of alternative
core texts which would provide grounds for such reinterpretation, it is very hard to see how it could be done.
FPR:How do we go forward? . . . How does the end-game play out?
ST:I'd say that in modern times the main culprit was Zbigniew Brzezynski, who freely admitted in an interview with the French
weekly magazine Le Nouvel Observateur in 1998 that he had this, as he called it, "brilliant idea" to let the Islamist genie
out of the bottle to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan following the Soviet occupation in 1979. At that time he was President Carter's
National Security Advisor. The transmission belt, from the CIA and various other U.S. agencies to the jihadists in Afghanistan, went
via Pakistan. The ISI, the all-powerful military Inter-Service Intelligence-an institution which is pro-jihadist to boot-was used
by the U.S. to arm elements which later morphed into al-Qaeda. The breeding ground for the modern, one might say postmodern form
of jihadism, was Afghanistan-and it was made possible by U.S. policy inputs which helped its development.
But if we look at the past 14 centuries, time and over again we see the same phenomenon. The first time they tried to conquer
Europe was across the Straits of Gibraltar and across the Iberian Peninsula, today's Spain. Then they crossed the Pyrinees and were
only stopped at Poitiers by Charles Martel in 732AD. Then they were gradually being pushed back, and the Reconquista -- the reconquest
of Spain-lasted 800 years, until 1492, when Cordoba finally fell to the Christian forces. Then came the second, Ottoman onslaught,
in the XIVth century, which went across the Dardanelles into the Balkan Peninsula. The Turks were only finally stopped at the gates
of Vienna in 1683. Pushing Turkey out of Europe went all the way to 1912, to the First Balkan War.
So we may say that we are now witnessing the third Islamic conquest of Europe. This time it is not using armed janissaries,
it is using so-called refugees. In fact most of them are healthy young men, and the whole process is obviously a strategic exercise
-- a joint venture between Ankara and Riyadh, who are logistically and financially helping this mass transfer of people from the
Turkish and Middle Eastern refugee camps to the heart of Europe. The effect may be the same, but this time it is far more dangerous
because, on the European side-unlike in 732, or 1683-there is no political will and there is no moral strength to resist. This is
happening because the migrants, the invaders, see Europe as the candy store with a busted lock and they are taking advantage of that
fact.
FPR: When you see the horrors of rapes and sexual assaults that took place across Germany, and now we see the Germans' response
. . . vigilantes on their streets . . . this is something that we either control politically and with leadership, or else it falls
apart into anarchy, Prof. Trifkovic?
ST: Instead of anarchy I think we will have a form of postmodern totalitarianism. The elite class, the government of Germany etc,
and the media, will demonize those who try to resist. In fact we already have the spectacle of the minister of the interior of one
of the German states saying that "hate speech" on the social networks and websites was far worse than the "incidents" in Cologne.
And the Mayor of Cologne-an ultra-feminist who is also a pro-immigration enthusiast-said that in order to prevent such events in
the future women should observe a "code of conduct" and keep distance "at an arm's length" from men. It's a classic example of blaming
the victim. The victims of Islamic violence should change their behavior in order to adapt themselves to the code of conduct and
values of the invaders. This is truly unprecedented.
Instead of utter anarchy, I think we are more likely to see the ever more stringent control of the social media. The German government
has already imposed on Google and Twitter which is based on the German draconian "hate speech" legislation, rather than on the universally
accepted standards. On the whole we see everywhere in Europe that when you have a political party or a person trying to call a spade
by its name, to call for a moratorium on immigration or for a fundamental change in the way of thinking, they will be demonized.
The same applies to Marine Le Pen in France and to her party, the Front National , or to Geert Wilders in Holland, or to Strache
in Austria. Whoever tries to articulate a coherent plan of action that includes a ban or limits on Islamic immigration is immediately
demonized as a right-wing fanatic or a fascist. Instead of facing the reality of the situation, that you have a multi-million Islamic
diaspora in Europe which is not assimilating, which refuses even to accept a code of conduct of the host population, the reaction
is always the same: blame the victim, and demonize those who try to articulate some form of resistance.
FPR: Dr. Trifkovic, how does a country such as ours, the United States, fix this problem . . .
ST: The answer is fairly simple, but it would require a fundamental transformation of the mindset of the political decision-makers.
It is to start treating Islamic activism not as "religious" but as an eminently political activity -- subversive
political activity, in the same way as communist subversion was treated during the Cold War. In both cases we have a committed, highly motivated group
of people who want to effect a fundamental transformation of the United States in a way that is contrary to the U.S. Constitution,
to the American way of life, and to the American values. It is time to stop the Islamists from hiding behind the "freedom of religion"
mantra. What they are seeking is not some "freedom of religion" but the freedom to organize in order to pursue political subversion.
They do not accept the U.S. Constitution.
To start with, every single potential U.S. citizen from the Islamic world needs to be interviewed in great detail about his or
her beliefs and commitments. It is simply impossible for a believing Muslim to swear the oath of allegiance to the United States.
None of them, if they are true believers, can regard the U.S. Constitution as superior to the Sharia-which is the law of God, while
the U.S. Constitution is a man-made document. I happen to know the oath because I am myself a naturalized U.S. citizen. They can
do it "in good faith" from their point of view by practicing taqqiya . This is the Arab word for the art of dissimulation,
when the Muslim lies to the infidel in order to protect the faith. For them to lie to investigators or to immigration officials about
their beliefs and their objectives does not create any conflict of conscience. The prophet of Islam himself has mandated the use
of taqqiya if it serves the objective of spreading the faith.
FPR: Can a civil war come out of this? Is it conceivable?
ST: If there is to be a civil war in Europe, it would be pursued between the elite class which wants to continue pursuing multiculturalism
and unlimited immigration --for example Germany, where over a million migrants from the Middle East, North Africa etc. were admitted
in 2015 alone-and the majority of the population who have not been consulted, and who feel that their home country is being irretrievably
lost. I do not believe that there will be many people fighting on the side of the multiculturalists' suicide, but nevertheless we
still have very effective forces of coercion and control on the government side which can be deployed to prevent the articulation
of any long-term, coherent plan of resistance.
FPR: Where can people continue to read you writings, Dr. Trifkovic?
ST: On Chroniclesmagazine.org where I publish weekly
online commentaries, and also in the print edition of Chronicles where I have my regular column.
The problem is that neoliberal ideology entered the state of the crisis in 2008 much like Bolshevik ideology entered the
crisis after WWII. The USSR managed to survive for another 50 years after that.
Notable quotes:
"... Multipolar is just that – leave exercise of power and responsibility as close to the local situation as possible. Brussels telling Poland who should be a TV presenter, or Washington deciding what people in rural Hungary should read is idiotic. What's the point of all this busy-body behaviour? It is always justified by some slogans about preventing 'human rights violations'. Right. We have seen the results – a lot more people have died and suffered because of 'humanitarian' interventions than from anything else in the last 20+ years. ..."
"... I do find the current rapprochement between Russia and the major Moslem states amusing. It goes beyond Turkey and Iran, Moscow is working all of them, Egypt, Sudan, I suspect it is a clever attempt to beat US at its own game – US has spent about four decades arming and unleashing any Islamic force it could find against Russians (and Slavs in general), using methods that were beyond brutal and hypocrisy that eventually backfired. Maybe turning it around is a good strategy. It is inconsistent, but when you fight extreme stupidity, often the only thing that works is to use more stupidity ..."
"... Orwell's vision is but one of the possibilities. Another is Armageddon. Yet another is a "(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen in the near and medium term. Things being what they are, it may even be the best we can hope for. ..."
"... I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world'. Maybe some ISIS fanatics have the same dream, but they are not in a position to achieve it. West has 'managed' it very poorly: mindless interventions, wars, migrants, hypocrisy, threats and blackmail. ..."
"... The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations. Russia or China really don't care that much who wins the elections in Portugal, or what regional papers write in Hungary – US seems to be obsessed with it. And the only justification that Western defenders offer when pressed is that 'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is obvious nonsense and only elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it ..."
"... Europeans have been invited to join the Eurasian Project, to create a continental market from "Lisbon to Vladivostok". Latent dreams of Hegemony hold at least some of their elites back. ..."
"... The West rode an ahistorical rogue wave of development to a point just short of Global Hegemony. That wave broke, and is now rolling back out into the world leaving the West just short of its civilizational resource requirements. No way to get back on a broken wave. In any case, China now holds the $$$ hammer, and Russia holds the military hammer, and they've now got the surfboard. Both of them, led by historically aware elites, know that Hegemony doesn't work, so will focus on keeping their neck of the woods as stable & prosperous as possible while hell blazes elsewhere. ..."
"The same "hegemon with allies/vassals" as it is now, only in that case divided in
three"
Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four
'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people,
most of the time are better off left alone.
Is that so hard to understand? Why should people in Washington (or Moscow, Beijing,
Brussels, ) be intimately involved with how others live their lives, with their fights and
alliances? Knowledge always dissipates with distance, and most of the 'masters of the
universe' are not that smart to start with.
Multipolar is just that – leave exercise of power and responsibility as close to the
local situation as possible. Brussels telling Poland who should be a TV presenter, or
Washington deciding what people in rural Hungary should read is idiotic. What's the point of
all this busy-body behaviour? It is always justified by some slogans about preventing 'human
rights violations'. Right. We have seen the results – a lot more people have died and
suffered because of 'humanitarian' interventions than from anything else in the last 20+
years.
I do find the current rapprochement between Russia and the major Moslem states amusing. It
goes beyond Turkey and Iran, Moscow is working all of them, Egypt, Sudan, I suspect it is a
clever attempt to beat US at its own game – US has spent about four decades arming and
unleashing any Islamic force it could find against Russians (and Slavs in general), using
methods that were beyond brutal and hypocrisy that eventually backfired. Maybe turning it
around is a good strategy. It is inconsistent, but when you fight extreme stupidity, often
the only thing that works is to use more stupidity
"The same "hegemon with allies/vassals" as it is now, only in that case divided in
three"
Why? There is absolutely nothing about 'multipolar' that dictates three, or four
'hegemons', or even lists who would the 'multis' be. The idea is simply that most people,
most of the time are better off left alone.
Peter's is the apocalyptic view made famous by Orwell. He may be right, it may all unravel
and Oceania, Eurasia & Eastasia run a classic 3-power calculus of shifting alliances in a
struggle for control of the "hinterlands". Not at all impossible, but certainly not what the
proponents of the multipolar world want.
The idea is much more than the notion that most people want to "be left alone". The
Multipolar world as it is actually being constructed by its proponents, from its monetary
structures to its security, commercial and trade regimes, is precisely the attempt to prevent
that Orwellian development in the face of Western decline. Their foundational tenet is that
Globalization as a world-historical trend is here to stay (for at least the next few
generations), and the "compartmentalization" of the world into alliances and hegemonies as
historically occurred is no longer a viable option. The 3 Orwellian powers are all nuclear
now, and the #1 priority is to mitigate the risk of war between them. Best to do that by
dissolving them into a matrix of commercial and developmental programs that they'd be loathe
to destroy.
EG: Though Russia considers both China and Iran "strategic partners", there is no formal
alliance with either of them, and there won't be. Alliances cannot be "forbidden", but the
countries that have signed onto the multipolar world program view alliances with
suspicion.
As a introduction to the coming multipolar world, Kupchan's Western-centric analysis is a
good place to start: https://www.amazon.com/No-Ones-World-Council-Relations/dp/0199325227 "Kupchan provides a detailed strategy for striking a bargain between the West and the
rising rest by fashioning a new consensus on issues of legitimacy, sovereignty, and
governance."
Assuming he even knows the least thing about what the multipolar world is trying to do,
Peter's view is that their attempt will fail. Maybe so.
To "fashion a new consensus on issues of legitimacy, sovereignty, and governance" requires
that the professional criminal class that grabbed the remains of Western power a decade and a
half ago has been forced to let go. If not, the world indeed faces an abyss.
Orwell's vision is but one of the possibilities. Another is Armageddon. Yet another is a
"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen in the
near and medium term. Things being what they are, it may even be the best we can hope
for.
"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen
in the near and medium term.
I think we already have it, except I don't think West has failed yet. Or it has in a way,
the process of failing goes on, but the consequences have not been felt much in the West
yet.
I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world'. Maybe some
ISIS fanatics have the same dream, but they are not in a position to achieve it. West has
'managed' it very poorly: mindless interventions, wars, migrants, hypocrisy, threats and
blackmail.
The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations. Russia or China really don't
care that much who wins the elections in Portugal, or what regional papers write in Hungary
– US seems to be obsessed with it. And the only justification that Western defenders
offer when pressed is that 'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is
obvious nonsense and only elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it (peterAUS?). What is
really going on is that West has over-reached and can barely handle its own problems. So they
scream 'Russians are coming' to distract, or to prolong the agony. Russians are not coming,
they don't care in 2017, they can barely control their huge territory today. More you see
squealing and lying in the Western media, more it shows that they have not much else to work
with.
"(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen
in the near and medium term.
I think we already have it, except I don't think West has failed yet. Or it has in a
way, the process of failing goes on, but the consequences have not been felt much in the
West yet.
Well, exogenous events aside, "decline and fall" is necessarily a process. A series of
steps and plateaus is typical. A major step occurred in 2007/8, when the money failed. The
bankers, in a frankly heroic display of coordination, propped up the $$$ and the West got a
decade long plateau. Things are going wobbly again, financially speaking and I suspect the
next step function to occur rather soon. Stays of execution have been exhausted, so it'll be
interesting how the West handles it, and how the RoW reacts.
Europeans have been invited to join the Eurasian Project, to create a continental market from
"Lisbon to Vladivostok". Latent dreams of Hegemony hold at least some of their elites back.
The USA has also been invited, but its dreams remain much more virile. That is, until Trump
who's backers seem to read the writing on the wall better than the Straussians.
I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world' .
The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations US seems to be obsessed with
it.
The fact is that the rise of the West to global dominance is due to a historical anomaly.
It was fuelled (literally) by the discovery and harnessing of the chemical energy embedded in
coal (late 18thC) and then oil (late 19thC). The first doubled the population, and as first
movers gave the West a running start. The second turned on the afterburners, and population
grew >3.5 fold. Again the West led the way. To fuel that ahistorical step-function growth
curve, control of resources on a global scale became its civilizational imperative.
That growth curve has plateaued, and the rest of the world has caught/is catching up
developmentally. The resources the West needs aren't going to be available to it in the way
they were 100 years ago. Them days is over, for everybody really, but especially for the West
because it has depleted its own hi-ROI resources, and both of its means of control (IMF$
System & U$M) of what's left of everybody else's are failing simultaneously. So its
plateau will not be flat, or not flat for long between increasingly violent steps.
The West rode an ahistorical rogue wave of development to a point just short of Global
Hegemony. That wave broke, and is now rolling back out into the world leaving the West just
short of its civilizational resource requirements. No way to get back on a broken wave. In
any case, China now holds the $$$ hammer, and Russia holds the military hammer, and they've
now got the surfboard. Both of them, led by historically aware elites, know that Hegemony
doesn't work, so will focus on keeping their neck of the woods as stable & prosperous as
possible while hell blazes elsewhere.
What is really going on is that West has over-reached and can barely handle its own
problems.
IMHO, what's really going on is that the West's problems are simply symptomatic of what
"decline and fall", if not "collapse" looks like from within a failing system. A long time
ago I read the diary of a Roman nobleman who in the most matter-of-fact style wrote of
exactly the same things Westerners complain about today. How this, that or the other thing no
longer works the way it did. For all of his 60+ years, every day was infinitesimally worse
than the day before, until finally he decides to pack up his Roman households and move to his
estates in Spain. It took 170(iirc) more years of continuous decline until Alaric finally
arrived at the Gates of Rome. If wholly due to internal causes, collapse is almost always a
slow motion train wreck.
'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is obvious nonsense and
only elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it (peterAUS?).
Actually, it's just stupid. Cold Warrior or not, the view betrays a deep and abiding
ignorance of both history and a large part of what drove the West's hegemonic successes. That
both militate against anyone else ever even trying such a thing on a global scale can't be
seen if you look at historical developments and the rest of the world through 10′ of
1″ pipe.
The idea that Russia wants/needs the Baltics is even more laughable than that it
wants/needs the Ukraine or Poland. None of these tarbabies have anything to offer but
trouble. Noisome flies on an elephant, it is only if they make themselves more troublesome as
outsiders than they would be as vassals would Russia move.
Why do you think so? I think we are about to enter an occasional plateau and things will
be stable or even improve for a while. The Rome analogies are instructive, but they only take you so far. E.g. Rome was
collapsing for about two centuries, on and off. Rome was also infinitely more brutal than
today's West and the 'barbarians' were real barbarians, not aspiring migrants led by
well-paid NGO comprador class. Why do you think it is getting wobbly?
Looks like the credibility of the US establishment might collapse under weight of all lies
that it perpetuated.
Americans and Russians should be natural partners in a multipolar world to widespread
benefit. The current situation dominated by neo-McCarthyism witch hunt is tragic. Looks like the
current neoliberal elite is truly evil, so there is not much hope for a change there. The
American people are overall decent and generous, but their abysmal lack of (or even interest) in
history and ignorance of the current events might be their undoing, I'm afraid.
Notable quotes:
"... The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is driven into the public's head. ..."
Robert Mueller, a former director of the FBI who is working as a special prosecutor
"investigating" a contrived hoax designed by the military/security complex and the DNC to
destroy the Trump presidency, has yet to produce a scrap of evidence that Russiagate is
anything but orchestrated fake news. As William Binney and other top experts have said, if
there is evidence of Russiagate, the NSA would have it. No investigation would be necessary. So
where is the evidence?
It is a revelation of how corrupt Washington is that a fake scandal is being investigated
while a real scandal is not. The fake scandal is Trump's Russiagate. The real scandal is
Hillary Clinton's uranium sale to Russia. No evidence for the former exists. Voluminous
evidence for Hillary's scandal lies in plain view. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/25/hillary-clinton-and-real-russian-collusion.html
Why are the clearly false charges against Trump being investigated and the clearly true
charges against Hillary not being investigated? The answer is that Hillary with her hostility
toward Russia and her denunciation of Russian President Putin as the "New Hitler" is not a
threat to the budget and power of the US military/security complex, while Trump's aim of
normalizing relations with Russia would deprive the military/security complex of the "enemy" it
requires to justify its massive budget and power.
Why hasn't President Trump ordered the Justice Department to investigate Hillary? Is the
answer that Trump is afraid the military/security complex will assassinate him? Why hasn't the
Justice Department undertaken the investigation on its own? Is the answer that Trump's
government is allied with his enemies?
How corrupt does Mueller have to be to agree to lead a fake investigation designed to
overthrow the democratic election of the President of the United States? Why doesn't Trump have
Mueller and Comey arrested for sedition and conspiring to overthrow the president of the United
States?
Why instead is Mueller expanding his investigation beyond his mandate and bringing charges
against Manafort and others for decade-old under-reporting of income? Why instead is Congress
harassing journalist Randy Credico for interviewing Julian Assange? How does an interview
become part of the House Intelligence (sic) Committee's investigation into "Russian active
measures directed at the 2016 U.S. election?" There were no such active measures, but the
uranium sale was real.
Why haven't the media conglomerates that have produced presstitutes instead of journalists
been broken up? Why can presstitutes lie 24/7, but a man can't make a pass at a woman?
Once you begin asking questions, there is no end of them.
The failure of the US and European media is extreme.
The presstitutes never investigate real events. The presstitutes never question
inconsistencies in official stories. They never tie together loose ends. They simply read over
and over the script handed to them until the official story that controls the explanation is
driven into the public's head.
Consider, for example, the Obama regime's claim to have murdered Osama bin Laden in his
"compound" in Abbottabad, Pakistan, next to a Pakistani military base. The official story had
to be changed several times. The Obama regime claim that Obama and top government officials had
watched the raid via cameras on the SEALs' helmets had to be abandoned. There was no reason to
withhold the filmed evidence, and of course there was no such evidence, so the initial claim to
have watched the killing became a "miscommunication." The staged photo of the top government
officials watching the alleged live filming was never explained.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1382859/Osama-bin-Laden-dead-Photo-Obama-watching-Al-Qaeda-leader-die-live-TV.html
The entire story never made any sense: Osama, unarmed and defended only by his unarmed wife,
was murdered in cold blood by a SEAL. What in the world for? Why murder rather than capture the
"terrorist mastermind" from whom endless information could have been gained? Why forgo the
political fanfare of parading Osama bin Laden before the world as a captive of the American
superpower?
Why were no photographs taken? Why was Osama's body dumped in the ocean. In other words, why
was all the evidence destroyed and nothing saved to back up the story?
Why the fake story of Osama being given a sea burial from an aircraft carrier? Why was no
media interested that the ship's crew wrote home that no such burial took place?
Did the SEAL unit have to be wiped out because the members were asking one another, "who was
on that raid?" "Were you on the bin Laden raid?" When in fact no one was on the raid.
Here is bin Laden's last confirmed interview. He says he had nothing to do with 9/11. Why
would a terrorist leader who succeed in humiliating "the world's only superpower" fail to boost
his movement by claiming credit? https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2012/11/26/the-osama-bin-laden-myth-2/
Think about this. The bin Laden story, including 9/11, is fake from start to finish, but it
is inscribed into encyclopedias, history books, and the public's consciousness.
And this is just one example of the institutionalized mass lies concocted by Washington and
the presstitutes and turned into truth. Washington's self-serving control over explanations has
removed Americans from reality and made them slaves to fake news.
So, how does democracy function when voters have no reliable information and, instead, are
led into the agendas of the rulers by orchestrated events and fake news?
Where is there any evidence that the United States is a functioning democracy?
This is two years old Foreign Affair article, which actually can be viewed as a precursor of the current anti-Russian
witch hunt. Foreign Affairs firmly belong to the neocons swamp, so be prepared ;-). As usual for such publications as Foreign
Affairs comments are more interesting that the article. BTW the resistance to the neoliberal empire led by the USA can probably
be mentioned as a part of Russian national idea. In this sense Stanislav Belkovsky observation that "the search for Russia's
national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea
is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." Putin simply became expression of this resistance to neocolonial rule, much like Gandy became in India
before.
The US neoliberal elite is fixated on the idea of destroying Russia much like Roman elite was fixated on the idea of destroying
Carnage.
This analysis is from 2015 or two years from now. It Is interesting to compare it (along with comments) with he current situation
and new developments...
Notable quotes:
"... "the search for Russia's national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." ..."
"... Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union. ..."
"... it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. ..."
"... This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created. ..."
"... Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. ..."
"... let us examine your assertion for a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator.. ..."
"... By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We Americans have blood on our hands! ..."
"... My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq ..."
"... Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our latest target. ..."
"... The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it, and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide, largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money they were usually cajoled into borrowing. ..."
"... I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified Western interference. ..."
"... He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). ..."
"... You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it ..."
"... Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently, Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers ..."
How did twenty-first-century Russia end up, yet again, in personal rule? An advanced industrial country of 142 million people, it
has no enduring political parties that organize and respond to voter preferences.
The military is sprawling yet tame; the immense
secret police are effectively in one man's pocket. The hydrocarbon sector is a personal bank, and indeed much of the economy is increasingly
treated as an individual fiefdom. Mass media move more or less in lockstep with the commands of the presidential administration.
Competing interest groups abound, but there is no rival center of power. In late October 2014, after a top aide to Russia's president
told the annual forum of the Valdai Discussion Club, which brings together Russian and foreign experts, that Russians understand
"if there is no Putin, there is no Russia," the pundit Stanislav Belkovsky observed that "the search for Russia's national idea,
which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin."
Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment
remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life
expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union.
But Russia is now beset by economic stagnation alongside high inflation, its labor productivity remains dismally low, and its
once-vaunted school system has deteriorated alarmingly. And it is astonishingly corrupt. Not only the bullying central authorities
in Moscow but regional state bodies, too, have been systematically criminalizing revenue streams, while giant swaths of territory
lack basic public services and local vigilante groups proliferate.
Across the country, officials who have purchased their positions for hefty sums team up with organized crime syndicates and use
friendly prosecutors and judges to extort and expropriate rivals. President Vladimir Putin's vaunted "stability," in short, has turned
into spoliation. But Putin has been in power for 15 years, and there is no end in sight. Stalin ruled for some three decades...
Jamil M Chaudri
Interesting but slanted and one-sided, myopic analysis. Why would the 1.6 billion Muslims spread over three continents, accept
Mr Kotkin's concept of "World Order".
There is no World Order; it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. It is
an effort by the colonialists to prolong their hegemony over Muslim lands and people.
One of the biggest mistakes Pakia made was to join the West in destroying Soviet Russia. A bi-polar world was a better world
than a unipolar world, where the west is destroying Muslim nations (one after the other).
This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created.
Jamil M Chaudri -> JACK RICE
Before the invasion (and total destruction) of Afghanis there was no daily violence in Afghania. Before the invasion (and total
destruction) of Iraqia, there is no daily violence in Iraqia. Before Pakia allied itself with America (leading to the further
debasement of an evolving state) there were no (practically) daily suicide bombings in Pakia. Before America decided to aid Ethiopia
(and joined it) in destroying Somalia, the state of Somalia had a pretty vibrant civil society, and no gangster precipitate violence.
Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity
state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. Before America decided to Destroy the Syrian
State, by leading a crusade (guised as a push for, of all things, DEMOCRACY), Syria was a fast-developing state. ......... This
list could be stretched back to the days of Pilgrim Fathers. But I am hoping you follow the drift.
If the hat fits, wear it! If the shoe fits, wear them!! From the top of the head to the sole of the shoes, everything is dyed
deep in BLOOD.
At the moment with more than 2'000'000 deaths in Iraqia, and more than 250'000 deaths in Afgania and more than 10'000 deaths
in Pakia,
Jamil M Chaudri -> BAKER ALLON
Take some smelling salts, and read what happened in North and South America, when whole nations were destroyed by the colonialists,
and kept in RESERVATIONS; their children were taken to missions for conversion to Christianity, their dwellings were destroyed.
Read about the Trail of Tears, when a whole nation was banished from their ancestral lands. Read about 2'000'000 deaths in Afghania.
For you destruction of HUMAN LIFE is less important than destruction of statues? Shows the kind of person you are. There are many
clips available on the internet showing the destruction of Human Life in most parts of Iraqia(including Mosel) by the blood thirsty
invaders. Harping about statues and museums, and totally callus about human lives (millions of them) you are indeed a museum piece!
Go back to the shelf you have come off.
Renee Barclay -> Jamil M Chaudri • 19 days ago
Bush was a moron but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam was a murderous dictator. And Saddam's sons were known rapists
and murderers.
Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites turned on each other after Bush eliminated Saddam and that's the simple fact. And they're STILL killing
each other to this day. Google it.
Jamil M Chaudri -> Renee Barclay
I do not have to Google such assertions. They are non sequitur, in nature. Even then, let us examine your assertion for
a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for
we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator..
By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the
Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We
Americans have blood on our hands!
My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.
On your non-sequitur. If a good man has evils sons, does the man become evil? Again, Sunnis turned against Shias; so what?
About the American Civil War, Google says: Though the number of killed and wounded in the Civil War is not known precisely, most
sources agree that the total number killed was between 640,000 and 700,000.
There was no civil war in Iraq before American Invasion and destruction of Iraqi State and Society. Thus, America is TOTALLY
responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.
Vivienne Perkins -> Jamil M Chaudri
Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is
the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our
latest target.
The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko
govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern
provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it,
and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United
States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide,
largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money
they were usually cajoled into borrowing.
As for political corruption, I don't know much about Russian levels of corruption, but I know a lot about the total corruption
of our system of government and the evisceration of all of our civil liberties, subsequent to the passage of the so-called and
mis-named Patriot Act. By the provisions of the NDAA, any US citizen can be picked up and held in indefinite military detention
without charge or trial. I wonder how much worse is Russia than that?
And since Citizens United, nearly every legislator in our Congress is absolutely bought and paid for. Maybe we should leave
Russia alone and think about how to restore what we once thought of as a democratic system of governance h ere in the United States.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
One thing has nothing to do with the other. While I'm in agreement with you on the Ukrainian matter, lets not forget that Vladimir
Putin's Russia also has a very big problem with Islamic extremists in their territories as does a number of countries around the
world .
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
I'm not sure I get your point. Maybe we should think about why the West has trouble with Islamic extremists. Might it be because
for over a hundred years the Western powers have chosen the dictatorial rulers of Muslim countries, drawn their boundaries, supported
leaders or removed them at its own whim (as S. Hussein in Iraq, the Shah in Iran, Mubarak in Egypt, Khaddafi in Libya, etc.) and
inserted Israel into Arab territory for its own reasons. Has it ever occurred to you that if Muslim nations had been allowed to
develop according to their own preferences, we might possibly have a more rational and peaceful world today? I can't prove this
obviously, but it does seem clear that the more the US attacks and interferes, the more hostile the Muslims become. As an American
I would like to see my country behave in a more decent way and with less self-serving propaganda.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
And was America to blame for Jihadi activity thousands of years ago before its existence? Do you not realize that their actvity
is given full sanction, and indeed commands them to go to war with the Kufar? Currently, there is Jihadi activity in countries
stretching from India toChechnya and in several African countries. They all have to do with Islamic aggression against there neighbors
and almost nothing to do with " western imperialism'
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
"Thousands of years ago" Islam did not exist. I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified
Western interference.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
Islam first appeared on the world stage in about the year 620 AD.
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
Which means it is now 1,395 years old (not thousands) and I doubt that it's legitimate to equate its idea that it was entitled
to make forcible conversions to the present situation, which seems to me to have arisen fairly recently as a response to Western
meddling in Arab lands.
Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37
The answer to the one of your question is a LOWD Yes: It was the FIRST CRUSADES that brought religiosity into the GAME OF KINGS:
enlarging kingdoms at the expense of neighbouring kingdoms. The First Crusade was indeed nearly a thousand years ago. The only
differences between JIHAD and CRUSADE are:
1. CRUSADERS are more cruel, surreptitious, deceptive, etc.
2. Crusades have no moral component, the goal is political supremacy. Jihad is about moral supremacy, justice and equality.
Since you bring religion into the mix, try to re-read the bible (the new and the old, both of which) PRESCRIBE DEATH to heretics
and non-believers. Here is a action in pursuance of such biblical dictate:
"A Spanish missionary, Bartolome de las Casas, described eye-witness accounts of mass murder, torture and rape. 2 Author Barry
Lopez, summarizing Las Casas' report wrote:
"One day, in front of Las Casas, the Spanish dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3000 people. 'Such inhumanities and barbarisms
were committed in my sight,' he says, 'as no age can parallel....' The Spanish cut off the legs of children who ran from them.
They poured people full of boiling soap. They made bets as to who, with one sweep of his sword, could cut a person in half. They
loosed dogs that 'devoured an Indian like a hog, at first sight, in less than a moment.' They used nursing infants for dog food."
3
Currently there is CRUSADING MISSIONARY activity in all non-Christian lands by religious warrior-fanatics (wearing the piety
hat of the Christian hue). Read about the recent reaction local Hindu population in India against such activity.
First the Western nations used the RELIGION hat to subdue MORALLY SUPPERIOR but less BLOOD-THURSTY peoples; When that strategy
ceased to work they rolled out a second version called DEMOCRACY. The second is as much of a sham as the earlier attempt.
Even internal to American, the "down trodden" masses are beginning to cry foul. The prevailing poverty rate in America is staggering.
See the figures in most authoritative publications.
Reading does bring enlightenment. That is why I read from diverse sources.
jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri
Yes that's why millions of people are seeking to emigrate by any means necessary., and not the reverse. I can assure the "
impoverished masses" in the west are in a lot better shape than they are in your neck of the woods.
But I think your trying to deflect once again. That Christianity ad well as other religions has had a bloody past, is no revelation,
band I for one am no big fan. But steps have been taken since than, to temper the extremism that brought on these acts. One does
not read of to many beheadings and or sucide bombings in the name of Jesus, Buddha, or Shiva. This is not meant as a criticism
of Muslim people per se, or a put down of that particular of the world, it is merely mea by as a critique of some of the problems
that I, and countless others see in the Islamic faith. There's no question that the leadership in the west, can be very corrupt
and rapacious at times, but I think the general trend is towards an attempt at understanding and accommodation. Now, I think it
is time for the Muslim world to attempt some sort of inner dialogue where they take steps towards a dressing and correcting their
own problems. I enjoyed our discussion, and I hope we will be able to part in civil terms. Best wishes.
Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37
First of all let me disabuse your notion of "my neck of the woods". In one of my earlier posting I have clearly stated that
I am a proud American Citizen, living in a well wooded and watered part of the US of A. But as my country has gone wayward (essentially
in pursuit of the buck) from its charter I am trying to bring America back to its promise.
You have levied accusation against me of "deflecting" arguments. Let me tell you what your problem is: you want to levy unsubstantiated
accusations against others, and when they, with references, confront your falsehoods and soothsaying, you accuse the other of
"deflecting" or "hijacking" the discussion! Pot calling the kettle black? Man, it is you who is unable to stick to the argument
– but then, as you have no argument, of course, you have nothing to stick to. Your statements are based on your penchant for name-calling,
bad mouthing, others. Perhaps your mind-set suggests that with such strategies, you will be the last "man standing" (?).
.
In my first posing on Dr Kotkin's article, I simply wanted to repudiate the so called "World Order". By what right have Great
Britain and France seats at the Security Council. By definition in a democratic set-up, every unit has equal rights. What Dr Kotkins
calls a World Order is therefore a sham democracy, created to benefit the West.
Under the guise of bringing democracy to Iraqia, Afghania, Libya, the Yemen, etc. the west is simply trying to prolong its
hegemony. It is a sham democracy they impose on weak nations. Pliant regimes are being installed, and millions of people being
killed. Any voice that is raised against such pseudo-democracy is silenced by force, by the thugs installed as "democratic" regimes.
This is western patronage.
Presently, you read about EXCESSES done by the lunatic fringes of the Muslim Society (these groups, by the way, were created
by and operate with the support of CIA – so that organisations like HOMELAND Security can get more dollars), because 90% of the
news buzz is created by American media.
The USA is a state trying to improve its democracy on a continuous basis. In 1777 did America treat all people the same way?
When was the promulgation of freedom (of SLAVES) passed in America? When was the voting rights acts passed? Are the economic developments
of the Whites and Blacks (call it Afro-American, if you like) even TODAY at the same level?
I wish you and your, the very best. May Allah have his mercy on us as a Nation, so that we can STANDING TOGETHER still sing
the Star-Spangled Banner.
jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri
We currently have a black president, black attorney General, a black director of homeland security, and a black national security
adviser. That's not to mention the various statutes and regulations on the books that are strictly enforced to prevent discrimination
and instances of inequality. Are these details of such small consequence? With regards to your observations of so called regime
change, I am in complete agreement with you . I against such interventions wether it is Cairo or Kiev. It is up to the indigenous
population of that country to determine the course that their country should take, and not have to be subjected to outside interference.
However, I have to ask the question, do you really think that the CIA bears the sole responsibility for the for the existence
of these groups? Could it be that they're trying to co opt them and use them for their own purposes? Im almost certain that the
CIA didn't create the leaders who take certain texts and use them for recruitment purposes. All I'm suggesting is that we need
to hear more from the moderate elements, and that some sort of reformation May have to be undertaken, much in the way it occurred
in other religions. ( Christianity for example )
Finally, Im not sure where you got the idea that I " have a penchant of bad mouthing others" but nevertheless, I sincerely
apologize if I have offended you in anyway. You are a worthy opponent, and it's been an enlightening discussion to say the least.
Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri
Stephen Kotkin is a Jewish shill for the oligarchy.
Jamil M Chaudri -> Robert Munro
I only knew Dr Kotkin's background as a historian; his religious affiliation did not concern me. The only part of his writing
that offended me was the concept of "World Order". I do not accept nor do I want anybody else to be suppressed by the unbridled-capitalists.
Unfortunately, to exercise unbridled capitalism, the underpinning is provided by exercise of power over others. It is the RAPE
OF NATIONS.
Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri
I've read Kotkin before. He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). However, from his background and affiliations,
it's very possible that his mind-set matches that of Baruch Levy, below..........
"The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races,
by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will
everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship.
In this New World Order, the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments
of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the
Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the
resources of the state.
Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have
all the property of the whole world in their hands."
Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx (1879), printed in La Revue de Paris, p. 574, June 1, 1928
Given the 3000 year history of Judaism, its religious writings, its possession of nuclear weapons and control of the American
government/economy/media, it seems appropriate to take such claims very seriously.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
Here's some more "fantasy" about your barbaric cult............
http://www.haaretz.com/news/di...
http://www.richardsilverstein....
http://www.btselem.org/downloa...
BTW- All three of the links above are to Jewish web sites - civilized Jews.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
It is the cult for which you shill that is the disease.......for 3000 years you have been a malignant cancer trying to metastasize
throughout our world.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
The disease that sickens and, hopefully, will kill your cult is truth...............
"To communicate anything with a Goy about our relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what
we teach about them, they would kill us openly." (found in both the Torah and Talmud)
Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
Of course, of course. But then, there are even some people with eyes who do not see. For them it is a blessing, for they see
no evil. It is really a mental condition due to aberrant eye. By the way, Yogi Berra is supposed to have said: "You can observe
a lot just by watching". But perhaps street-walkers in Europe do not watch, because their game is different, and they are enjoying
the benefits of their game.
I do not want to shatter your innocence, but slaves are not seen by street-walkers: Slaves are consigned to SLAVE QUARTERS.
Present day, western world has built slave quarters in India, Pakistan, Sudan, Congo, etc. This is where the Western Worlds Slaves
Live. If you want to read the whole report goto: http://www.globalslaveryindex....
India has the largest number of slaves in the world (14 million).
Mind you, A related concept is "wage slavery". To understand this concept requires sensibility.
Yet another but even more subtle concept is "mental slavery". A variation of this is known as the Stockholm Syndrome. Mental
Slavery is a totally abject state where the person ceases to think eigenartig but assumes the likes and hates of the person/people
who have programmed him/her.
From the last line in your post, I can only assume that deep programming has been done. Programmed consciousness is virtual
reality.
ARJAN VELLEKOOP -> Jamil M Chaudri
So, now the west should care for what governments in other countries do with their citizens? I thought you hated imperialists!
Your reference to India is just idiotic. Why should the west feel responsible for the condition India is in?! You are probably
going to say the colonial past. Well, thats bullcrap since there are plenty of countries which have grown, since their liberty,
into decent and reasonably wealthy states. The west is not responsible for India, India is responsible for itself.
Particularly the Middle Eastern countries have shown behaviour to shift the blame away from their own failures. Maybe it have
to do with their Islamic background, in which so many actions are based/motivated from religious basis. And of course the prophet
is never wrong, so it must be the fault of a imperialist outsider.
Get real. The countries which contain these so called slaves, can make their own choices. They dont have to be part of the
capitalist terrible world order. They can make the better choice like you and other believe it. Sadly enough, that idea is, apparently,
not that good. Because good ideas sell itself.
Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street
walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And
specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern
Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing
REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it.
There is absolutely no religious underpinning for State Government in any of the states where Muslims are in Majority. The
Saudi Family are are there because of America; the present rule in Iran is a reaction to America (re-)installing the 2-cent "SHAH"
to rule the Iranian Nation. The present excesses of the Iranian state are essentially defense postures against America intransigence,
and mechanisms to harm (and if possible) destroy the Iranian Nation.
I experience reality every day. If you would just come out of your VIRTUAL REALITY, you might by just watching observe some.
I know deprogramming is not easy, and self-deprogramming is even more difficult.
All the same, I suggest that you wake up and smell the Coffee; if not try some smelling salts.
Robert Munro -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
And we have read the drivel of thousands of shills for the oligarchy and the Zionist/Fascist cult...............such as yourself.
Ivan Night Terrible
Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin
America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently,
Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated
promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth
nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas
from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as
to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline
to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers.
But two points:
One, it was soon enough clear that the Europeans, having used South Stream as leverage in the sanctions game, probably
overplayed their hand. The day following the announcement they were struggling for composure so far as I can make out.
Two, Putin stunned everyone with his decision from Ankara, where he stood with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to announce that South
Stream would be rerouted to serve the Turkish market. Think about this: It is more than a new deal; there are significant political
and diplomatic implications in this, given Turkey's traditional alliances, its EU aspirations and so on.
This is two years old Foreign Affair article, which actually can be viewed as a precursor of the current anti-Russian
witch hunt. Foreign Affairs firmly belong to the neocons swamp, so be prepared ;-). As usual for such publications as Foreign
Affairs comments are more interesting that the article. BTW the resistance to the neoliberal empire led by the USA can probably
be mentioned as a part of Russian national idea. In this sense Stanislav Belkovsky observation that "the search for Russia's
national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea
is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." Putin simply became expression of this resistance to neocolonial rule, much like Gandy became in India
before.
The US neoliberal elite is fixated on the idea of destroying Russia much like Roman elite was fixated on the idea of destroying
Carnage.
This analysis is from 2015 or two years from now. It Is interesting to compare it (along with comments) with he current situation
and new developments...
Notable quotes:
"... "the search for Russia's national idea, which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin." ..."
"... Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union. ..."
"... it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. ..."
"... This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created. ..."
"... Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. ..."
"... let us examine your assertion for a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator.. ..."
"... By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We Americans have blood on our hands! ..."
"... My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq ..."
"... Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our latest target. ..."
"... The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it, and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide, largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money they were usually cajoled into borrowing. ..."
"... I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified Western interference. ..."
"... He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). ..."
"... You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it ..."
"... Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently, Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers ..."
How did twenty-first-century Russia end up, yet again, in personal rule? An advanced industrial country of 142 million people, it
has no enduring political parties that organize and respond to voter preferences.
The military is sprawling yet tame; the immense
secret police are effectively in one man's pocket. The hydrocarbon sector is a personal bank, and indeed much of the economy is increasingly
treated as an individual fiefdom. Mass media move more or less in lockstep with the commands of the presidential administration.
Competing interest groups abound, but there is no rival center of power. In late October 2014, after a top aide to Russia's president
told the annual forum of the Valdai Discussion Club, which brings together Russian and foreign experts, that Russians understand
"if there is no Putin, there is no Russia," the pundit Stanislav Belkovsky observed that "the search for Russia's national idea,
which began after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, is finally over. Now, it is evident that Russia's national idea is Vladimir
Vladimirovich Putin."
Russia is classified as a high-income economy by the World Bank (having a per capita GDP exceeding $14,000). Its unemployment
remains low (around five percent); until recently, consumer spending had been expanding at more than five percent annually; life
expectancy has been rising; and Internet penetration exceeds that of some countries in the European Union.
But Russia is now beset by economic stagnation alongside high inflation, its labor productivity remains dismally low, and its
once-vaunted school system has deteriorated alarmingly. And it is astonishingly corrupt. Not only the bullying central authorities
in Moscow but regional state bodies, too, have been systematically criminalizing revenue streams, while giant swaths of territory
lack basic public services and local vigilante groups proliferate.
Across the country, officials who have purchased their positions for hefty sums team up with organized crime syndicates and use
friendly prosecutors and judges to extort and expropriate rivals. President Vladimir Putin's vaunted "stability," in short, has turned
into spoliation. But Putin has been in power for 15 years, and there is no end in sight. Stalin ruled for some three decades...
Jamil M Chaudri
Interesting but slanted and one-sided, myopic analysis. Why would the 1.6 billion Muslims spread over three continents, accept
Mr Kotkin's concept of "World Order".
There is no World Order; it is the predatory West's efforts to enslave people to the European weltanschauung. It is
an effort by the colonialists to prolong their hegemony over Muslim lands and people.
One of the biggest mistakes Pakia made was to join the West in destroying Soviet Russia. A bi-polar world was a better world
than a unipolar world, where the west is destroying Muslim nations (one after the other).
This is no World Order: it a man eat man world that has been created.
Jamil M Chaudri -> JACK RICE
Before the invasion (and total destruction) of Afghanis there was no daily violence in Afghania. Before the invasion (and total
destruction) of Iraqia, there is no daily violence in Iraqia. Before Pakia allied itself with America (leading to the further
debasement of an evolving state) there were no (practically) daily suicide bombings in Pakia. Before America decided to aid Ethiopia
(and joined it) in destroying Somalia, the state of Somalia had a pretty vibrant civil society, and no gangster precipitate violence.
Before America decided to KILL Gadhafi by indiscriminatingly arming gangsters to carry out their will, the incipient-unity
state of Libya did not have the sectarian violence that we presently hear about. Before America decided to Destroy the Syrian
State, by leading a crusade (guised as a push for, of all things, DEMOCRACY), Syria was a fast-developing state. ......... This
list could be stretched back to the days of Pilgrim Fathers. But I am hoping you follow the drift.
If the hat fits, wear it! If the shoe fits, wear them!! From the top of the head to the sole of the shoes, everything is dyed
deep in BLOOD.
At the moment with more than 2'000'000 deaths in Iraqia, and more than 250'000 deaths in Afgania and more than 10'000 deaths
in Pakia,
Jamil M Chaudri -> BAKER ALLON
Take some smelling salts, and read what happened in North and South America, when whole nations were destroyed by the colonialists,
and kept in RESERVATIONS; their children were taken to missions for conversion to Christianity, their dwellings were destroyed.
Read about the Trail of Tears, when a whole nation was banished from their ancestral lands. Read about 2'000'000 deaths in Afghania.
For you destruction of HUMAN LIFE is less important than destruction of statues? Shows the kind of person you are. There are many
clips available on the internet showing the destruction of Human Life in most parts of Iraqia(including Mosel) by the blood thirsty
invaders. Harping about statues and museums, and totally callus about human lives (millions of them) you are indeed a museum piece!
Go back to the shelf you have come off.
Renee Barclay -> Jamil M Chaudri • 19 days ago
Bush was a moron but that doesn't change the fact that Saddam was a murderous dictator. And Saddam's sons were known rapists
and murderers.
Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites turned on each other after Bush eliminated Saddam and that's the simple fact. And they're STILL killing
each other to this day. Google it.
Jamil M Chaudri -> Renee Barclay
I do not have to Google such assertions. They are non sequitur, in nature. Even then, let us examine your assertion for
a moment: Bush was a Moron but Saddam was a murderous dictator. By your logic we American must be the epitome of Moron-ness, for
we ELECTED Bush; Iraqis must be a gentle and good people who were overpowered by the Saddam, the Murderous Dictator..
By the way, how many Iraqis did Saddam murder? And then, how many Iraqis were murdered, at the command of Bush? Since the
Iraqis were killed/murdered at the command of Bush, and Americans elected Bush, Americans are responsible for the murders. We
Americans have blood on our hands!
My assertion is that America is responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.
On your non-sequitur. If a good man has evils sons, does the man become evil? Again, Sunnis turned against Shias; so what?
About the American Civil War, Google says: Though the number of killed and wounded in the Civil War is not known precisely, most
sources agree that the total number killed was between 640,000 and 700,000.
There was no civil war in Iraq before American Invasion and destruction of Iraqi State and Society. Thus, America is TOTALLY
responsible for 2'000'000 deaths in Iraq.
Vivienne Perkins -> Jamil M Chaudri
Dear Jamil: As an American citizen, I take my hat off to you for telling the exact truth -- that the terrorist state is
the United States of America and our media's propaganda stream is now in overdrive, especially in regard to Russia, which is our
latest target.
The US State Department's Victoria Nuland and our CIA (+ Blackwater mercenaries) installed the puppet Yatsenyuk/Poroshenko
govt. in Kiev (to do our bidding) and CIA Dir. James Brennan himself went to Kiev to launch the civil war against the Eastern
provinces that Europeans, at least, are now trying to bring to a halt. The US does leave nothing but failed states behind it,
and Western Ukraine will be the next failed state in a long list. Since the end of WWII, the best estimate is that the United
States, in 67 military operations and countless covert CIA operations, has destroyed between 20 and 30 million people world-wide,
largely in the interest of commandeering their resources or serving the interests of the banks to which they owe money--money
they were usually cajoled into borrowing.
As for political corruption, I don't know much about Russian levels of corruption, but I know a lot about the total corruption
of our system of government and the evisceration of all of our civil liberties, subsequent to the passage of the so-called and
mis-named Patriot Act. By the provisions of the NDAA, any US citizen can be picked up and held in indefinite military detention
without charge or trial. I wonder how much worse is Russia than that?
And since Citizens United, nearly every legislator in our Congress is absolutely bought and paid for. Maybe we should leave
Russia alone and think about how to restore what we once thought of as a democratic system of governance h ere in the United States.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
One thing has nothing to do with the other. While I'm in agreement with you on the Ukrainian matter, lets not forget that Vladimir
Putin's Russia also has a very big problem with Islamic extremists in their territories as does a number of countries around the
world .
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
I'm not sure I get your point. Maybe we should think about why the West has trouble with Islamic extremists. Might it be because
for over a hundred years the Western powers have chosen the dictatorial rulers of Muslim countries, drawn their boundaries, supported
leaders or removed them at its own whim (as S. Hussein in Iraq, the Shah in Iran, Mubarak in Egypt, Khaddafi in Libya, etc.) and
inserted Israel into Arab territory for its own reasons. Has it ever occurred to you that if Muslim nations had been allowed to
develop according to their own preferences, we might possibly have a more rational and peaceful world today? I can't prove this
obviously, but it does seem clear that the more the US attacks and interferes, the more hostile the Muslims become. As an American
I would like to see my country behave in a more decent way and with less self-serving propaganda.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
And was America to blame for Jihadi activity thousands of years ago before its existence? Do you not realize that their actvity
is given full sanction, and indeed commands them to go to war with the Kufar? Currently, there is Jihadi activity in countries
stretching from India toChechnya and in several African countries. They all have to do with Islamic aggression against there neighbors
and almost nothing to do with " western imperialism'
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
"Thousands of years ago" Islam did not exist. I hold to my original point that Islamic terrorism has been created by unjustified
Western interference.
jlord37 -> Vivienne Perkins
Islam first appeared on the world stage in about the year 620 AD.
Vivienne Perkins -> jlord37
Which means it is now 1,395 years old (not thousands) and I doubt that it's legitimate to equate its idea that it was entitled
to make forcible conversions to the present situation, which seems to me to have arisen fairly recently as a response to Western
meddling in Arab lands.
Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37
The answer to the one of your question is a LOWD Yes: It was the FIRST CRUSADES that brought religiosity into the GAME OF KINGS:
enlarging kingdoms at the expense of neighbouring kingdoms. The First Crusade was indeed nearly a thousand years ago. The only
differences between JIHAD and CRUSADE are:
1. CRUSADERS are more cruel, surreptitious, deceptive, etc.
2. Crusades have no moral component, the goal is political supremacy. Jihad is about moral supremacy, justice and equality.
Since you bring religion into the mix, try to re-read the bible (the new and the old, both of which) PRESCRIBE DEATH to heretics
and non-believers. Here is a action in pursuance of such biblical dictate:
"A Spanish missionary, Bartolome de las Casas, described eye-witness accounts of mass murder, torture and rape. 2 Author Barry
Lopez, summarizing Las Casas' report wrote:
"One day, in front of Las Casas, the Spanish dismembered, beheaded, or raped 3000 people. 'Such inhumanities and barbarisms
were committed in my sight,' he says, 'as no age can parallel....' The Spanish cut off the legs of children who ran from them.
They poured people full of boiling soap. They made bets as to who, with one sweep of his sword, could cut a person in half. They
loosed dogs that 'devoured an Indian like a hog, at first sight, in less than a moment.' They used nursing infants for dog food."
3
Currently there is CRUSADING MISSIONARY activity in all non-Christian lands by religious warrior-fanatics (wearing the piety
hat of the Christian hue). Read about the recent reaction local Hindu population in India against such activity.
First the Western nations used the RELIGION hat to subdue MORALLY SUPPERIOR but less BLOOD-THURSTY peoples; When that strategy
ceased to work they rolled out a second version called DEMOCRACY. The second is as much of a sham as the earlier attempt.
Even internal to American, the "down trodden" masses are beginning to cry foul. The prevailing poverty rate in America is staggering.
See the figures in most authoritative publications.
Reading does bring enlightenment. That is why I read from diverse sources.
jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri
Yes that's why millions of people are seeking to emigrate by any means necessary., and not the reverse. I can assure the "
impoverished masses" in the west are in a lot better shape than they are in your neck of the woods.
But I think your trying to deflect once again. That Christianity ad well as other religions has had a bloody past, is no revelation,
band I for one am no big fan. But steps have been taken since than, to temper the extremism that brought on these acts. One does
not read of to many beheadings and or sucide bombings in the name of Jesus, Buddha, or Shiva. This is not meant as a criticism
of Muslim people per se, or a put down of that particular of the world, it is merely mea by as a critique of some of the problems
that I, and countless others see in the Islamic faith. There's no question that the leadership in the west, can be very corrupt
and rapacious at times, but I think the general trend is towards an attempt at understanding and accommodation. Now, I think it
is time for the Muslim world to attempt some sort of inner dialogue where they take steps towards a dressing and correcting their
own problems. I enjoyed our discussion, and I hope we will be able to part in civil terms. Best wishes.
Jamil M Chaudri -> jlord37
First of all let me disabuse your notion of "my neck of the woods". In one of my earlier posting I have clearly stated that
I am a proud American Citizen, living in a well wooded and watered part of the US of A. But as my country has gone wayward (essentially
in pursuit of the buck) from its charter I am trying to bring America back to its promise.
You have levied accusation against me of "deflecting" arguments. Let me tell you what your problem is: you want to levy unsubstantiated
accusations against others, and when they, with references, confront your falsehoods and soothsaying, you accuse the other of
"deflecting" or "hijacking" the discussion! Pot calling the kettle black? Man, it is you who is unable to stick to the argument
– but then, as you have no argument, of course, you have nothing to stick to. Your statements are based on your penchant for name-calling,
bad mouthing, others. Perhaps your mind-set suggests that with such strategies, you will be the last "man standing" (?).
.
In my first posing on Dr Kotkin's article, I simply wanted to repudiate the so called "World Order". By what right have Great
Britain and France seats at the Security Council. By definition in a democratic set-up, every unit has equal rights. What Dr Kotkins
calls a World Order is therefore a sham democracy, created to benefit the West.
Under the guise of bringing democracy to Iraqia, Afghania, Libya, the Yemen, etc. the west is simply trying to prolong its
hegemony. It is a sham democracy they impose on weak nations. Pliant regimes are being installed, and millions of people being
killed. Any voice that is raised against such pseudo-democracy is silenced by force, by the thugs installed as "democratic" regimes.
This is western patronage.
Presently, you read about EXCESSES done by the lunatic fringes of the Muslim Society (these groups, by the way, were created
by and operate with the support of CIA – so that organisations like HOMELAND Security can get more dollars), because 90% of the
news buzz is created by American media.
The USA is a state trying to improve its democracy on a continuous basis. In 1777 did America treat all people the same way?
When was the promulgation of freedom (of SLAVES) passed in America? When was the voting rights acts passed? Are the economic developments
of the Whites and Blacks (call it Afro-American, if you like) even TODAY at the same level?
I wish you and your, the very best. May Allah have his mercy on us as a Nation, so that we can STANDING TOGETHER still sing
the Star-Spangled Banner.
jlord37 -> Jamil M Chaudri
We currently have a black president, black attorney General, a black director of homeland security, and a black national security
adviser. That's not to mention the various statutes and regulations on the books that are strictly enforced to prevent discrimination
and instances of inequality. Are these details of such small consequence? With regards to your observations of so called regime
change, I am in complete agreement with you . I against such interventions wether it is Cairo or Kiev. It is up to the indigenous
population of that country to determine the course that their country should take, and not have to be subjected to outside interference.
However, I have to ask the question, do you really think that the CIA bears the sole responsibility for the for the existence
of these groups? Could it be that they're trying to co opt them and use them for their own purposes? Im almost certain that the
CIA didn't create the leaders who take certain texts and use them for recruitment purposes. All I'm suggesting is that we need
to hear more from the moderate elements, and that some sort of reformation May have to be undertaken, much in the way it occurred
in other religions. ( Christianity for example )
Finally, Im not sure where you got the idea that I " have a penchant of bad mouthing others" but nevertheless, I sincerely
apologize if I have offended you in anyway. You are a worthy opponent, and it's been an enlightening discussion to say the least.
Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri
Stephen Kotkin is a Jewish shill for the oligarchy.
Jamil M Chaudri -> Robert Munro
I only knew Dr Kotkin's background as a historian; his religious affiliation did not concern me. The only part of his writing
that offended me was the concept of "World Order". I do not accept nor do I want anybody else to be suppressed by the unbridled-capitalists.
Unfortunately, to exercise unbridled capitalism, the underpinning is provided by exercise of power over others. It is the RAPE
OF NATIONS.
Robert Munro -> Jamil M Chaudri
I've read Kotkin before. He advocates a world ruled by an elite (unspecified). However, from his background and affiliations,
it's very possible that his mind-set matches that of Baruch Levy, below..........
"The Jewish people as a whole will become its own Messiah. It will attain world domination by the dissolution of other races,
by the abolition of frontiers, the annihilation of monarchy and by the establishment of a world republic in which the Jews will
everywhere exercise the privilege of citizenship.
In this New World Order, the children of Israel will furnish all the leaders without encountering opposition. The Governments
of the different peoples forming the world republic will fall without difficulty into the hands of the
Jews. It will then be possible for the Jewish rulers to abolish private property and everywhere to make use of the
resources of the state.
Thus will the promise of the Talmud be fulfilled, in which it is said that when the Messianic time is come, the Jews will have
all the property of the whole world in their hands."
Baruch Levy, Letter to Karl Marx (1879), printed in La Revue de Paris, p. 574, June 1, 1928
Given the 3000 year history of Judaism, its religious writings, its possession of nuclear weapons and control of the American
government/economy/media, it seems appropriate to take such claims very seriously.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
Here's some more "fantasy" about your barbaric cult............
http://www.haaretz.com/news/di...
http://www.richardsilverstein....
http://www.btselem.org/downloa...
BTW- All three of the links above are to Jewish web sites - civilized Jews.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
It is the cult for which you shill that is the disease.......for 3000 years you have been a malignant cancer trying to metastasize
throughout our world.
Robert Munro -> BAKER ALLON
The disease that sickens and, hopefully, will kill your cult is truth...............
"To communicate anything with a Goy about our relations would be equal to the killing of all Jews, for if the Goyim knew what
we teach about them, they would kill us openly." (found in both the Torah and Talmud)
Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
Of course, of course. But then, there are even some people with eyes who do not see. For them it is a blessing, for they see
no evil. It is really a mental condition due to aberrant eye. By the way, Yogi Berra is supposed to have said: "You can observe
a lot just by watching". But perhaps street-walkers in Europe do not watch, because their game is different, and they are enjoying
the benefits of their game.
I do not want to shatter your innocence, but slaves are not seen by street-walkers: Slaves are consigned to SLAVE QUARTERS.
Present day, western world has built slave quarters in India, Pakistan, Sudan, Congo, etc. This is where the Western Worlds Slaves
Live. If you want to read the whole report goto: http://www.globalslaveryindex....
India has the largest number of slaves in the world (14 million).
Mind you, A related concept is "wage slavery". To understand this concept requires sensibility.
Yet another but even more subtle concept is "mental slavery". A variation of this is known as the Stockholm Syndrome. Mental
Slavery is a totally abject state where the person ceases to think eigenartig but assumes the likes and hates of the person/people
who have programmed him/her.
From the last line in your post, I can only assume that deep programming has been done. Programmed consciousness is virtual
reality.
ARJAN VELLEKOOP -> Jamil M Chaudri
So, now the west should care for what governments in other countries do with their citizens? I thought you hated imperialists!
Your reference to India is just idiotic. Why should the west feel responsible for the condition India is in?! You are probably
going to say the colonial past. Well, thats bullcrap since there are plenty of countries which have grown, since their liberty,
into decent and reasonably wealthy states. The west is not responsible for India, India is responsible for itself.
Particularly the Middle Eastern countries have shown behaviour to shift the blame away from their own failures. Maybe it have
to do with their Islamic background, in which so many actions are based/motivated from religious basis. And of course the prophet
is never wrong, so it must be the fault of a imperialist outsider.
Get real. The countries which contain these so called slaves, can make their own choices. They dont have to be part of the
capitalist terrible world order. They can make the better choice like you and other believe it. Sadly enough, that idea is, apparently,
not that good. Because good ideas sell itself.
Jamil M Chaudri -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
You seem unable to differentiate between an imperialist and a "good Samaritan". You had earlier written that, as a street
walker in Europe you had not seen any slaves, my response to that posting simply told you where you could go to see slavery. And
specific reference to India was simply to help you find slavery most easily - with 14 million slaves India is the centre of Modern
Slavery. However, in my conversations with Indians, especially the demi-literate ones, instead of admitting to the prevailing
REALITY in India, they do not admit to seeing it. With their eyes open, the street walkers do not see it.
There is absolutely no religious underpinning for State Government in any of the states where Muslims are in Majority. The
Saudi Family are are there because of America; the present rule in Iran is a reaction to America (re-)installing the 2-cent "SHAH"
to rule the Iranian Nation. The present excesses of the Iranian state are essentially defense postures against America intransigence,
and mechanisms to harm (and if possible) destroy the Iranian Nation.
I experience reality every day. If you would just come out of your VIRTUAL REALITY, you might by just watching observe some.
I know deprogramming is not easy, and self-deprogramming is even more difficult.
All the same, I suggest that you wake up and smell the Coffee; if not try some smelling salts.
Robert Munro -> ARJAN VELLEKOOP
And we have read the drivel of thousands of shills for the oligarchy and the Zionist/Fascist cult...............such as yourself.
Ivan Night Terrible
Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin-Putin... :)) Hmmm... oк, about Putin: Look at Putin's foreign agenda this past year: Latin
America just as the sanctions came in - an intentional finger in Washington's eye, as I read it - then China, China again recently,
Turkey more recently, India just now. He has not been to Iran, but there, as in all these other places, he has forged or reiterated
promising relations. The deals cut are too numerous to list. A couple are worth mentioning. The twin gas deals with China, worth
nearly three-quarters of a trillion dollars, are historic all by themselves. In six years' time China will be buying more gas
from Russia than the latter now sells to Europe. And do not miss this: My sources tell me that this gas can be priced such as
to crowd the U.S. at least partially out of the Asian market. Other side of the world: Putin has just canceled a planned pipeline
to southeastern Europe, the South Stream. This is the defeat Western media put it over as, surely: Russia loses some customers.
But two points:
One, it was soon enough clear that the Europeans, having used South Stream as leverage in the sanctions game, probably
overplayed their hand. The day following the announcement they were struggling for composure so far as I can make out.
Two, Putin stunned everyone with his decision from Ankara, where he stood with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to announce that South
Stream would be rerouted to serve the Turkish market. Think about this: It is more than a new deal; there are significant political
and diplomatic implications in this, given Turkey's traditional alliances, its EU aspirations and so on.
"... So the Ukrainian government is admitting that their previous narrative is false – and that the ultra-rghtist Svoboda and Right Sector, who were the military arm of the Maidan protesters, provoked the incident that led to Yanukovich's overthrow. ..."
"... are opposed to the Minsk agreement, brokered by the EU, which makes concessions to the east Ukrainians. ..."
The truth is often ignored, at first, and when that becomes impossible, truth-tellers are often punished. As two incidents starkly
reveal, this is certainly the case when it comes to the civil war in Ukraine and Washington's unfolding cold war with Russia.
The first illustration of our truth-telling principle occurred after the "Maidan revolution" had already captured the imagination
of the Western media, which was busy promulgating the official view as given expression by US government officials. According to
this narrative, the "protesters" were heroes, the government of "Russian-backed' Viktor Yanukovich was a coven of devils, and the
catalyzing incident that led to Yanukovich's ouster, the
shooting of protesters in the
Maidan, was the work of the Berkut, the Ukrainian government's militarized police.
There's just one problem with this story: it isn't true. A
leaked phone call between Estonian Foreign Minister Urmas
Paet and European Union High Representative for Foreign Affairs Catherine Ashton, revealed that the protesters were shot by their
own leaders – the radical nationalists who had military control of the Maiden.
... ... ...
Ashton's main concern seemed to be that this would get out and discredit the new government "from the very beginning."
Oh, but not to worry: it didn't get out, at least not in the United States. There were oblique mentions of the recording in the
mainstream media, but only weeks afterward and then without any specifics: two months after the fact, the Los Angeles Timesreferred to it in
the vaguest terms, only to dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory." The New York Times didn't cover it: neither did the War
Street Journal, Time magazine, or any of the other usual suspects. The Daily Beast, typically, served as a mouthpiece
for the official Washington-Kiev account,
citing Dr. Bogomolets as claiming her conversation with Paet was a "misunderstanding." Yet Paet didn't cite her as his sole source:
he said "all the evidence." No doubt the Estonians have their own sources in the country, and it's improbable the Foreign
Minister would have made such an assertion based on a single person's testimony.
In any case, the story was pretty much buried here in the US, with the exception of
this space and a few other
alternative news sources.
But in Europe, it was a different story: the German public television station ARD carried
a report which threw the identity of the Maidan shooters
into serious question. And more recently the BBC produced a documentary, "The
Untold Story of the Maidan Massacre," in which eyewitnesses assert that the Berkut were fired on from positions controlled by
the ultra-nationalist Svoboda Party, which, along with the neo-Nazi "Right Sector" organization, ran Maidan security.
Still, the story was ignored in the US, but that may not be possible much longer, and the reason springs from an unlikely source:
the current Ukrainian government of President Petro Poroshenko.
Last week Ukrainian police
raided the homes
of Svoboda Party leadersOleksandr Sych, who served
as Deputy Prime Minister in the post-Maidan government, and
Ole Pankevich,
whose 2013 appearance at a neo-Nazi memorial event provoked the ire of the World Jewish Congress. The Ukrainian prosecutor's office
confirmed that the raid was conducted as part of an investigation into the Maidan shootings:
"The court warrant for the raid on the apartment of Pankevich, a former MP and the ex-head of Lviv regional council, explicitly
referred to a BBC documentary on the subject, according to a copy of the warrant In the documentary, journalist Gabriel Gatehouse
spoke to an opposition nationalist rifleman who had acknowledged having fired on riot police in the morning of February 20."
"[A]lso refers to video footage that showed a rifleman firing out of the Hotel Ukraina, situated on Maidan. The room from
which he fired was occupied at the time by Pankevich, according to the court warrant.
"Police also raided the apartment of Sich, vice-prime minister in the immediate post-Maidan government in 2014, also in
connection with shots fired from the same hotel, where he was also staying on February 20.
"An assistant to Ukraine's prosecutor general, Vladislav Kutsenko, confirmed to the Ukrainian TV channel 112 that searches
of the Svoboda leaders' apartments were linked to an investigation of the February 20 events."
So the Ukrainian government is admitting that their previous narrative is false – and that the ultra-rghtist Svoboda and Right
Sector, who were the military arm of the Maidan protesters, provoked the incident that led to Yanukovich's overthrow.
Why this stunning turnaround?
Both Svoboda and Right Sector have declared war on the Poroshenko regime and are calling for a "national
revolution" – one that would install them in power. The ultra-nationalists are opposed to the Minsk agreement, brokered by
the EU, which makes concessions to the east Ukrainians.
The far right is accusing Poroshenko of "betraying the revolution." They scoff at the ceasefire as a "sellout" because they want
the civil war to continue: and as Poroshenko makes draconian cuts in the government budget in order to mollify Ukraine's creditors,
and to ensure the flow of Western funding, the rightists are gaining ground politically. And they are getting increasingly violent,
staging a riot in front of the parliament building in
which three officers were
killed by
a grenade hurled at policemen: 130 cops were injured. The rightists were protesting the decision by the parliament to grant
the eastern rebels some small degree of autonomy. This incident followed a
series of
shoot-outs with the armed rightist gang known as Right
Sector, which played a key role
in the Maidan protest movement.
That the Poroshenko government, which had previously stonewalled any serious effort to investigate the shooting deaths that sent
Yanukovich packing, is playing this card now is an indication of the regime's desperation in the face of a challenge from the ultra-right.
For to upend the official narrative – one that is fully supported by their Western sponsors, and their amen corner in the media –
is to subvert the very foundations of the post-Maidan order. If the truth comes out, the ultra-nationalists may be finished – but
so may the government that exposes their murderous role.
It's interesting to reread this two years article by
Here is an extremely shred observation: "I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though,
it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead,
injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a
deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Notable quotes:
"... how Paul Wolfowitz and his neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us." ..."
"... the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East. ..."
"... the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us." ..."
"... Would the neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991? ..."
"... The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe. ..."
"... Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States. ..."
"... I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though, it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead, injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster. ..."
"... "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us." ..."
"... the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth, behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl. ..."
"... In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ˝-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome: ..."
"... In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad. ..."
"... "The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in an interview . "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda. ..."
"... In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said. ..."
"... That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out. ..."
"... As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated, politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress. ..."
"... Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, divulged some details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented) with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons. ..."
"... Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam? ..."
Former Washington insider and four-star General Wesley Clark spilled the beans several years ago on how Paul Wolfowitz and his
neoconservative co-conspirators implemented their sweeping plan to destabilize key Middle Eastern countries once it became clear
that post-Soviet Russia "won't stop us."
As I recently reviewed a YouTube
eight-minute clip of General Clark's October 2007 speech, what leaped out
at me was that the neocons had been enabled by their assessment that -- after the collapse of the Soviet Union – Russia had become
neutralized and posed no deterrent to U.S. military action in the Middle East.
While Clark's public exposé largely escaped attention in the neocon-friendly "mainstream media" (surprise, surprise!), he recounted
being told by a senior general at the Pentagon shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001 about the Donald Rumsfeld/Paul Wolfowitz-led
plan for "regime change" in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran.
This was startling enough, I grant you, since officially the United States presents itself as a nation that respects international
law, frowns upon other powerful nations overthrowing the governments of weaker states, and – in the aftermath of World War II – condemned
past aggressions by Nazi Germany and decried Soviet "subversion" of pro-U.S. nations.
But what caught my eye this time was the significance of Clark's depiction of Wolfowitz in 1992 gloating over what he judged
to be a major lesson learned from the Desert Storm attack on Iraq in 1991; namely, "the Soviets won't stop us."
That remark directly addresses a question that has troubled me since March 2003 when George W. Bush attacked Iraq. Would the
neocons – widely known as "the crazies" at least among the remaining sane people of Washington – have been crazy enough to opt for
war to re-arrange the Middle East if the Soviet Union had not fallen apart in 1991?
The question is not an idle one. Despite the debacle in Iraq and elsewhere, the neocon "crazies" still exercise huge influence
in Establishment Washington. Thus, the question now becomes whether, with Russia far more stable and much stronger, the "crazies"
are prepared to risk military escalation with Russia over Ukraine, what retired U.S. diplomat William R. Polk
deemed a potentially dangerous nuclear
confrontation, a "Cuban Missile Crisis in reverse."
Putin's Comment
The geopolitical vacuum that enabled the neocons to try out their "regime change" scheme in the Middle East may have been what
Russian President Vladimir Putin was referring to in his state-of-the-nation address on April 25, 2005, when he called the collapse
of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [past] century." Putin's comment has been a favorite meme of those
who seek to demonize Putin by portraying him as lusting to re-establish a powerful USSR through aggression in Europe.
But, commenting two years after the Iraq invasion, Putin seemed correct at least in how the neocons exploited the absence
of the Russian counterweight to over-extend American power in ways that were harmful to the world, devastating to the people at the
receiving end of the neocon interventions, and even detrimental to the United States.
If one takes a step back and attempts an unbiased look at the spread of violence in the Middle East over the past quarter-century,
it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Putin's comment was on the mark. With Russia a much-weakened military power in the 1990s
and early 2000s, there was nothing to deter U.S. policymakers from the kind of adventurism at Russia's soft underbelly that, in earlier
years, would have carried considerable risk of armed U.S.-USSR confrontation.
I lived in the USSR during the 1970s and would not wish that kind of restrictive regime on anyone. Until it fell apart, though,
it was militarily strong enough to deter Wolfowitz-style adventurism. And I will say that – for the millions of people now dead,
injured or displaced by U.S. military action in the Middle East over the past dozen years – the collapse of the Soviet Union as a
deterrent to U.S. war-making was not only a "geopolitical catastrophe" but an unmitigated disaster.
Visiting Wolfowitz
In his 2007 speech, General Clark related how in early 1991 he dropped in on Paul Wolfowitz, then Under Secretary of Defense for
Policy (and later, from 2001 to 2005, Deputy Secretary of Defense). It was just after a major Shia uprising in Iraq in March 1991.
President George H.W. Bush's administration had provoked it, but then did nothing to rescue the Shia from brutal retaliation by Saddam
Hussein, who had just survived his Persian Gulf defeat.
According to Clark, Wolfowitz said: "We should have gotten rid of Saddam Hussein. The truth is, one thing we did learn is
that we can use our military in the Middle East and the Soviets won't stop us. We've got about five or 10 years to clean up those
old Soviet client regimes – Syria, Iran (sic), Iraq – before the next great superpower comes on to challenge us."
It's now been more than 10 years, of course. But do not be deceived into thinking Wolfowitz and his neocon colleagues believe
they have failed in any major way. The unrest they initiated keeps mounting – in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Lebanon – not to mention
fresh violence now in full swing in Yemen and the crisis in Ukraine. Yet, the Teflon coating painted on the neocons continues to
cover and protect them in the "mainstream media."
True, one neocon disappointment is Iran. It is more stable and less isolated than before; it is playing a sophisticated role in
Iraq; and it is on the verge of concluding a major nuclear agreement with the West – barring the throwing of a neocon/Israeli monkey
wrench into the works to thwart it, as has been done
in the past.
An earlier setback for the neocons came at the end of August 2013 when President Barack Obama decided not to let himself be mouse-trapped
by the neocons into ordering U.S. forces to attack Syria. Wolfowitz et al. were on the threshold of having the U.S. formally join
the war against Bashar al-Assad's government of Syria when there was the proverbial slip between cup and lip. With the aid of the
neocons' new devil-incarnate Vladimir Putin, Obama faced them down and avoided war.
A week after it became clear that the neocons were not going to get their war in Syria, I found myself at the main CNN studio
in Washington together with Paul Wolfowitz and former Sen. Joe Lieberman, another important neocon. As I reported in "How
War on Syria Lost Its Way," the scene was surreal – funereal, even, with both Wolfowitz and Lieberman very much down-in-the-mouth,
behaving as though they had just watched their favorite team lose the Super Bowl.
Israeli/Neocon Preferences
But the neocons are nothing if not resilient. Despite their grotesque disasters, like the Iraq War, and their disappointments,
like not getting their war on Syria, they neither learn lessons nor change goals. They just readjust their aim, shooting now at Putin
over Ukraine as a way to clear the path again for "regime change" in Syria and Iran. [See Consortiumnews.com's "Why
Neocons Seek to Destabilize Russia."]
The neocons also can take some solace from their "success" at enflaming the Middle East with Shia and Sunni now at each other's
throats – a bad thing for many people of the world and certainly for the many innocent victims in the region, but not so bad for
the neocons. After all, it is the view of Israeli leaders and their neocon bedfellows (and women) that the internecine wars among
Muslims provide at least some short-term advantages for Israel as it consolidates control over the Palestinian West Bank.
In a Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
memorandum for President Obama on Sept. 6, 2013,
we called attention to an uncommonly candid
report
about Israeli/neocon motivation, written by none other than the Israel-friendly New York Times Bureau Chief in Jerusalem Jodi Rudoren
on Sept. 2, 2013, just two days after Obama took advantage of Putin's success in persuading the Syrians to allow their chemical weapons
to be destroyed and called off the planned attack on Syria, causing consternation among neocons in Washington.
Rudoren can perhaps be excused for her naďve lack of "political correctness." She had been barely a year on the job, had very
little prior experience with reporting on the Middle East, and – in the excitement about the almost-attack on Syria – she apparently
forgot the strictures normally imposed on the Times' reporting from Jerusalem. In any case, Israel's priorities became crystal clear
in what Rudoren wrote.
In her article, entitled "Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria," Rudoren noted that the Israelis were arguing, quietly,
that the best outcome for Syria's (then) 2 ˝-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, was no outcome:
"For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory
by Mr. Assad's government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.
"'This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don't want one to win - we'll settle for
a tie,' said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. 'Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that's the strategic
thinking here. As long as this lingers, there's no real threat from Syria.'"
Clear enough? If this is the way Israel's leaders continue to regard the situation in Syria, then they look on deeper U.S. involvement
– overt or covert – as likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict there. The longer Sunni and Shia are killing
each other, not only in Syria but also across the region as a whole, the safer Tel Aviv's leaders calculate Israel is.
Favoring Jihadis
But Israeli leaders have also made clear that if one side must win, they would prefer the Sunni side, despite its bloody extremists
from Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State. In September 2013, shortly after Rudoren's article, Israeli Ambassador to the United States
Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored
the Sunni extremists over Assad.
"The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime
as the keystone in that arc," Oren said in
an interview. "We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren't backed by Iran to the bad guys
who were backed by Iran." He said this was the case even if the "bad guys" were affiliated with Al-Qaeda.
In June 2014, Oren – then speaking as a former ambassador – said Israel
would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the
continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria. "From Israel's perspective, if there's got to be an evil that's got to prevail,
let the Sunni evil prevail," Oren said.
Netanyahu sounded a similar theme in his March 3, 2015 speech to the U.S. Congress in which he trivialized the threat from the
Islamic State with its "butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube" when compared to Iran, which he accused of "gobbling up the
nations" of the Middle East.
That Syria's main ally is Iran with which it has a mutual defense treaty plays a role in Israeli calculations. Accordingly, while
some Western leaders would like to achieve a realistic if imperfect settlement of the Syrian civil war, others who enjoy considerable
influence in Washington would just as soon see the Assad government and the entire region bleed out.
As cynical and cruel as this strategy is, it isn't all that hard to understand. Yet, it seems to be one of those complicated,
politically charged situations well above the pay-grade of the sophomores advising President Obama – who, sad to say, are no match
for the neocons in the Washington Establishment. Not to mention the Netanyahu-mesmerized Congress.
Corker Uncorked
Speaking of Congress, a year after Rudoren's report, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, who now chairs the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee, divulged some
details about the military attack that had been planned against Syria, while lamenting that it was canceled. In doing so, Corker called Obama's abrupt change on Aug. 31, 2013, in opting for negotiations over open war on Syria, "the worst
moment in U.S. foreign policy since I've been here." Following the neocon script, Corker blasted the deal (since fully implemented)
with Putin and the Syrians to rid Syria of its chemical weapons.
Corker complained, "In essence – I'm sorry to be slightly rhetorical – we jumped into Putin's lap." A big No-No, of course – especially
in Congress – to "jump into Putin's lap" even though Obama was able to achieve the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons without
the United States jumping into another Middle East war.
It would have been nice, of course, if General Clark had thought to share his inside-Pentagon information earlier with the rest
of us. In no way should he be seen as a whistleblower.
At the time of his September 2007 speech, he was deep into his quixotic attempt to win the Democratic nomination for president
in 2008. In other words, Clark broke the omerta code of silence observed by virtually all U.S. generals, even post-retirement, merely
to put some distance between himself and the debacle in Iraq – and win some favor among anti-war Democrats. It didn't work, so he
endorsed Hillary Clinton; that didn't work, so he endorsed Barack Obama.
Wolfowitz, typically, has landed on his feet. He is now presidential hopeful Jeb Bush's foreign policy/defense adviser, no
doubt outlining his preferred approach to the Middle East chessboard to his new boss. Does anyone know the plural of "bedlam?"
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He
is a 30-year veteran of the CIA and Army intelligence and co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS). McGovern
served for considerable periods in all four of CIA's main directorates.
The most important part of power elite in neoliberal society might not be financial oligarchy, but intelligence agencies elite.
If you look at the role
of Brennan in "Purple color revolution" against Trump that became clear that heads of the agencies are powerful political players
with resources at hand, that are not available to other politicians.
Notable quotes:
"... Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses. ..."
"... This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign powers." ..."
"... This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty, a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs. ..."
"... This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare, economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of war equipment. ..."
"... Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen, and religious leaders. ..."
"... The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world. ..."
"... Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage, and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union. ..."
"... The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created to be; however, it does not exist. ..."
"... Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act. As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3 ..."
True existence of these multimegaton hydrogen bombs has so drastically changed the Grand Strategy of world powers that, today
and for the future, that strategy is being carried out by the invisible forces of the CIA, what remains of the KGB, and their lesser
counterparts around the world.
Men in positions of great power have been forced to realize that their aspirations and responsibilities have exceeded the
horizons of their own experience, knowledge, and capability. Yet, because they are in chargeof this high-technology society, they
are compelled to do something. This overpowering necessity to do something -- although our leaders do not know precisely what to
do or how to do it -- creates in the power elite an overbearing fear of the people. It is the fear not of you and me as individuals
but of the smoldering threat of vast populations and of potential uprisings of the masses.
This power elite is not easy to define; but the fact that it exists makes itself known from time to time. Concerning the power
elite, R. Buckminster Fuller wrote of the "vastly ambitious individuals who [have] become so effectively powerful because of their
ability to remain invisible while operating behind the national scenery." Fuller noted also, "Always their victories [are] in the
name of some powerful sovereign-ruled country. The real power structures [are] always the invisible ones behind the visible sovereign
powers."
The power elite is not a group from one nation or even of one alliance of nations. It operates throughout the world and no doubt
has done so for many, many centuries.
... ... ...
From this point ot view, warfare, and the preparation tor war, is an absolute necessity for the welfare of the state and for control
of population masses, as has been so ably documented in that remarkable novel by Leonard Lewin Report From Iron Mountain on
the Possibility and Desirability of Peace and attributed by Lewin to "the Special Study Group in 1966," an organization whose
existence was so highly classified that there is no record, to this day, of who the men in the group were or with what sectors of
the government or private life they were connected.
This report, as presented in the novel, avers that war is necessary to sustain society, the nation, and national sovereignty,
a view that has existed for millennia. Through the ages, totally uncontrolled warfare -- the only kind of "real" war -- got bigger
and "better" as time and technology churned on, finally culminating in World War II with the introduction of atomic bombs.
Not long after that great war, the world leaders were faced suddenly with the reality of a great dilemma. At the root of this
dilemma was the new fission-fusion-fission H-bomb. Is it some uncontrollable Manichean device, or is it truly a weapon of war?
... ... ...
Such knowledge is sufficient. The dilemma is now fact. There can no longer be a classic or traditional war, at least not the all-out,
go-for-broke-type warfare there has been down through the ages, a war that leads to a meaningful victory for one side and abject
defeat for the other.
Witness what has been called warfare in Korea, and Vietnam, and the later, more limited experiment with new weaponry called the
Gulf War in Iraq.
... ... ...
This is why, even before the end of World War II, the newly structured bipolar confrontation between the world of Communism
and the West resulted in the employment of enormous intelligence agencies that had the power, invisibly, to wage underground warfare,
economic and well as military, anywhere -- including methods of warfare never before imagined. These conflicts had to be tactically
designed to remain short of the utilization of the H-bomb by either side. There can never be victories in such wars, but tremendous
loss of life could occur, and there is the much-desired consumption and attrition of trillions of dollars', and rubles', worth of
war equipment.
One objective of this book is to discuss these new forces. It will present an insider's view of the CIA story and provide
comparisons with the intelligence organizations -- those invisible forces -- of other countries. To be more realistic with the priorities
of these agencies themselves, more will be said about operational matters than about actual intelligence gathering as a profession.
This subject cannot be explored fully without a discussion of assassination. Since WWII, there has been an epidemic of murders
at the highest level in many countries. Without question the most dynamic of these assassinations was the murder of President John
F. Kennedy, but JFK was just one of many in a long list that includes bankers, corporate leaders, newsmen, rising political spokesmen,
and religious leaders.
The ever-present threat of assassination seriously limits the number of men who would normally attempt to strive for positions
of leadership, if for no other reason than that they could be singled out for murder at any time. This is not a new tactic, but it
is one that has become increasingly utilized in pressure spots around the world.
It is essential to note that there are two principal categories of intelligence organizations and that their functions are determined
generally by the characteristics of the type of government they serve -- not by the citizens of the government, but by its leaders.
Under totalitarian or highly centralized nondemocratic regimes, the intelligence organization is a political, secret service
with police powers. It is designed primarily to provide personal security to those who control the authority of the state against
all political opponents, foreign and domestic. These leaders are forced to depend upon these secret elite forces to remain alive
and in power. Such an organization operates in deep secrecy and has the responsibility for carrying out espionage, counterespionage,
and pseudoterrorism. This methodology is as true of Israel, Chile, or Jordan as it has been of the Soviet Union.
The second category of intelligence organization is one whose agents are limited to the gathering and reporting of intelligence
and who have no police functions or the power to arrest at home or abroad. This type of organization is what the CIA was created
to be; however, it does not exist.
Over the decades since the CIA was created, it has acquired more sinister functions. All intelligence agencies, in time, tend
to develop along similar lines. The CIA today is a far cry hum the agency that was created in 1947 by the National Security Act.
As President Harry S. Truman confided to close friends, the greatest mistake of his administration took place when he signed that
National Security Act of 1947 into law. It was that act which, among other things it did, created the Central Intelligence Agency.3
Heritage Foundation is just a neocon swamp filled with "national security parasites". What you can expect from them ?
Notable quotes:
"... A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, " Maintaining the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." ..."
"... These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded in return. ..."
"... No doubt both corporations will continue to look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative." ..."
According to recent
reports the Heritage Foundation, clearly the most established and many would say politically influential conservative think tank
in Washington, is considering David Trulio, Lockheed Martin vice president and longtime lobbyist for the defense industry, to be
its next president. While Heritage's connection to Washington's sprawling national security industry is already well-established,
naming Trulio as its president might be seen as gilding the lily.
If anything, reading this report made me more aware of the degree to which the "conservative policy community" in Washington depends
on the whims and interests of particular donors.
And this relationship is apparently no longer something to be concealed or embarrassed by. One can now be open about being in
the pocket of the defense industry. Trulio's potential elevation to Heritage president at what we can assume will be an astronomical
salary, will no doubt grease the already well-oiled pipeline of funds from major contractors to this "conservative" foundation, which
already operates with an
annual disclosed budget of almost $100 million.
A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, "
Maintaining
the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring
a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." In 2011, senior national security fellow James Carafano
wrote " Five Steps
to Defend America's Industrial Defense Base ," which complained about a "fifty billion dollar under-procurement by the Pentagon"
for buying new weaponry. In 2016,
Heritage made the case for
several years of reinvestment to get the military back on "sound footing," with an increase in fiscal year 2016 described as "an
encouraging start."
These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's
belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies
somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded
in return. Incidentally, the 2009 position paper seems to be directing the government to throw more taxpayer dollars to Boeing
than to its competitor Lockheed. But it seems both defense giants have landed a joint contract this year to produce a new submersible
for the Navy, so it may no longer be necessary to pick sides on that one at least. No doubt both corporations will continue to
look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding.
Although one needn't reduce everything to dollars and cents, if we're looking at the issues Heritage and other likeminded foundations
are likely to push today, it's far more probable they'll be emphasizing the national security state rather than, say, opposition
to gay marriage or the defense of traditional gender roles. There's lots more money to be made advocating for the former rather than
the latter. In May 2013, Heritage
sponsored a formal debate between "two conservatives" and "two liberals" on the issue of defense spending, with Heritage and
National Review presenting the "conservative" side. I wondered as I listened to part of this verbal battle why is was considered
"conservative" to call for burdening American taxpayers with massive increases in the purchase of Pentagon weaponry and planes that
take
17 years to get off the ground.
Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to
keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have
the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily
the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative."
In any event, Mr. Trulio won't have to travel far if he takes the Heritage helm. He and his corporation are already ensconced
only a few miles away from Heritage's Massachusetts Avenue headquarters, if the information provided by Lockheed Martin is correct.
It says: "Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately
98,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment
of advanced technology systems, products and services." A company like that can certainly afford to underwrite a think tank -- if
the price is right.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for twenty-five
years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale PhD. He writes for many websites and scholarly journals and is the author of thirteen
books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents . His books have been translated into multiple
languages and seem to enjoy special success in Eastern Europe.
"... Since World War II the United States has used the Dollar Standard and its dominant role in the IMF and World Bank to steer trade and investment along lines benefiting its own economy. But now that the growth of China's mixed economy has outstripped all others while Russia finally is beginning to recover, countries have the option of borrowing from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and other non-U.S. consortia. ..."
"... The problem with surrendering is that this Washington Consensus is extractive and lives in the short run, laying the seeds of financial dependency, debt-leveraged bubbles and subsequent debt deflation and austerity. The financial business plan is to carve out opportunities for price gouging and corporate profits. Today's U.S.-sponsored trade and investment treaties would make governments pay fines equal to the amount that environmental and price regulations, laws protecting consumers and other social policies might reduce corporate profits. "Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals. These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules, would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over legislation seen as undermining a company's 'expected future profits.' ..."
"... At the center of today's global split are the last few centuries of Western social and democratic reform. Seeking to follow the classical Western development path by retaining a mixed public/private economy, China, Russia and other nations find it easier to create new institutions such as the AIIB than to reform the dollar standard IMF and World Bank. Their choice is between short-term gains by dependency leading to austerity, or long-term development with independence and ultimate prosperity. ..."
"... The price of resistance involves risking military or covert overthrow. Long before the Ukraine crisis, the United States has dropped the pretense of backing democracies. The die was cast in 1953 with the coup against Iran's secular government, and the 1954 coup in Guatemala to oppose land reform. Support for client oligarchies and dictatorships in Latin America in the 1960 and '70s was highlighted by the overthrow of Allende in Chile and Operation Condor's assassination program throughout the continent. Under President Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States has claimed that America's status as the world's "indispensible nation" entitled it back the recent coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and to sponsor the NATO attack on Libya and Syria, leaving Europe to absorb the refugees. ..."
"... The trans-Atlantic financial bubble has left a legacy of austerity since 2008. Debt-ridden economies are being told to cope with their downturns by privatizing their public domain. ..."
"... The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions. American intransigence threatens to force an either/or choice in what looms as a seismic geopolitical shift over the proper role of governments: Should their public sectors provide basic services and protect populations from predatory monopolies, rent extraction and financial polarization? ..."
"... Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath. The principle that needed to be voiced was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival on the altar of inter-government and private debt demands. The concept of nationhood embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia based international law on the principle of parity of sovereign states and non-interference. Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies and tear economies apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable. ..."
"... The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for the remainder of the 21 st century. ..."
"... wiki/Anglo-Persian Oil Company "In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar of Persia. He financed this with capital he had made from his shares in the highly profitable Mount Morgan mine in Queensland, Australia. D'Arcy assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange the Shah received Ł20,000 (Ł2.0 million today),[1] an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future profits." Note the 16% = ~1/6, the rest going off-shore. ..."
"... The Greens in Aus researched the resources sector in Aus, to find that it is 83% 'owned' by off-shore entities. Note that 83% = ~5/6, which goes off-shore. Coincidence? ..."
"... Note that in Aus, the democratically elected so-called 'leaders' not only allow exactly this sort of economic rape, they actively assist it by, say, crippling the central bank and pleading for FDI = selling our, we the people's interests, out. Those traitor-leaders are reversing 'Enlightenment' provisions, privatising whatever they can and, as Michael Hudson well points out the principles, running Aus into debt and austerity. ..."
"... US banking oligarchs will expend the last drop of our blood to prevent a such a linking, just as they were willing to sacrifice our blood and treasure in WW1 and 2, as is alluded to here.: ..."
"... The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for the remainder of the 21st century. ..."
"... It's important to note that such interests have ruled (owned, actually) imperial Britain for centuries and the US since its inception, and the anti-federalists knew it. ..."
"... "After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support costs among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered the Great War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts." The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler. ..."
"... But they didn't invent anything. They learned from their WASP forebears in the British Empire, whose banking back to Oliver Cromwell had become inextricably entangled with Jewish money and Jewish interests to the point that Jews per capita dominated it even at the height of the British Empire, when simpleton WASPs assume that WASPs truly ran everything, and that WASP power was for the good of even the poorest WASPs. ..."
"... The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI. ..."
"... Bingo. Stopping it was a huge factor. There was no way the banksters of the world were going to let that go forward, nor were they going to let Germany and Russia link up in any other ways. They certainly were not about to allow any threats to the Suez Canal nor any chance to let the oil fields slip from their control either. ..."
"... This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve ..."
"... In fact, this is exactly how it was supposed to work. The wave of liberal democracies was precisely to overturn the monarchies, which were the last bulwark protecting the people from the full tyranny of the financiers, who were, by nature, one-world internationalists. ..."
"... The real problem with this is that any form of monetary arrangement involves an implied trusteeship, with obligations on, as well as benefits for, the trustee. The US is so abusing its trusteeship through the continual use of an irresponsible sanctions regime that it risks a good portion of the world economy abandoning its system for someone else's, which may be perceived to be run more responsibility. The disaster scenario would be the US having therefore in the future to access that other system to purchase oil or minerals, and having that system do to us what we previously did to them -- sanction us out. ..."
"... " Marx believed that capitalism was inherently built upon practices of usury and thus inevitably leading to the separation of society into two classes: one composed of those who produce value and the other, which feeds upon the first one. In "Theories of Surplus Value" (written 1862-1863), he states " that interest (in contrast to industrial profit) and rent (that is the form of landed property created by capitalist production itself) are superfetations (i.e., excessive accumulations) which are not essential to capitalist production and of which it can rid itself." ..."
In theory, the global financial system is supposed to help every country gain. Mainstream teaching of international finance, trade
and "foreign aid" (defined simply as any government credit) depicts an almost utopian system uplifting all countries, not stripping
their assets and imposing austerity. The reality since World War I is that the United States has taken the lead in shaping the international
financial system to promote gains for its own bankers, farm exporters, its oil and gas sector, and buyers of foreign resources –
and most of all, to collect on debts owed to it.
Each time this global system has broken down over the past century, the major destabilizing force has been American over-reach
and the drive by its bankers and bondholders for short-term gains. The dollar-centered financial system is leaving more industrial
as well as Third World countries debt-strapped. Its three institutional pillars – the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank
and World Trade Organization – have imposed monetary, fiscal and financial dependency, most recently by the post-Soviet Baltics,
Greece and the rest of southern Europe. The resulting strains are now reaching the point where they are breaking apart the arrangements
put in place after World War II.
The most destructive fiction of international finance is that all debts can be paid, and indeed should be paid, even when
this tears economies apart by forcing them into austerity – to save bondholders, not labor and industry. Yet European countries,
and especially Germany, have shied from pressing for a more balanced global economy that would foster growth for all countries and
avoid the current economic slowdown and debt deflation.
Imposing austerity on Germany after World War I
After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support costs
among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered the Great
War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts. Headed by John Maynard Keynes, British diplomats sought
to clean their hands of responsibility for the consequences by promising that all the money they received from Germany would simply
be forwarded to the U.S. Treasury.
The sums were so unpayably high that Germany was driven into austerity and collapse. The nation suffered hyperinflation as the
Reichsbank printed marks to throw onto the foreign exchange also were pushed into financial collapse. The debt deflation was much
like that of Third World debtors a generation ago, and today's southern European PIIGS (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece and Spain).
In a pretense that the reparations and Inter-Ally debt tangle could be made solvent, a triangular flow of payments was facilitated
by a convoluted U.S. easy-money policy. American investors sought high returns by buying German local bonds; German municipalities
turned over the dollars they received to the Reichsbank for domestic currency; and the Reichsbank used this foreign exchange to pay
reparations to Britain and other Allies, enabling these countries to pay the United States what it demanded.
But solutions based on attempts to keep debts of such magnitude in place by lending debtors the money to pay can only be temporary.
The U.S. Federal Reserve sustained this triangular flow by holding down U.S. interest rates. This made it attractive for American
investors to buy German municipal bonds and other high-yielding debts. It also deterred Wall Street from drawing funds away from
Britain, which would have driven its economy deeper into austerity after the General Strike of 1926. But domestically, low U.S. interest
rates and easy credit spurred a real estate bubble, followed by a stock market bubble that burst in 1929. The triangular flow of
payments broke down in 1931, leaving a legacy of debt deflation burdening the U.S. and European economies. The Great Depression lasted
until outbreak of World War II in 1939.
Planning for the postwar period took shape as the war neared its end. U.S. diplomats had learned an important lesson. This time
there would be no arms debts or reparations. The global financial system would be stabilized – on the basis of gold, and on creditor-oriented
rules. By the end of the 1940s the United States held some 75 percent of the world's monetary gold stock. That established the U.S.
dollar as the world's reserve currency, freely convertible into gold at the 1933 parity of $35 an ounce.
It also implied that once again, as in the 1920s, European balance-of-payments deficits would have to be financed mainly by the
United States. Recycling of official government credit was to be filtered via the IMF and World Bank, in which U.S. diplomats alone
had veto power to reject policies they found not to be in their national interest. International financial "stability" thus became
a global control mechanism – to maintain creditor-oriented rules centered in the United States.
To obtain gold or dollars as backing for their own domestic monetary systems, other countries had to follow the trade and investment
rules laid down by the United States. These rules called for relinquishing control over capital movements or restrictions on foreign
takeovers of natural resources and the public domain as well as local industry and banking systems.
By 1950 the dollar-based global economic system had become increasingly untenable. Gold continued flowing to the United States,
strengthening the dollar – until the Korean War reversed matters. From 1951 through 1971 the United States ran a deepening balance-of-payments
deficit, which stemmed entirely from overseas military spending. (Private-sector trade and investment was steadily in balance.)
U.S. Treasury debt replaces the gold exchange standard
The foreign military spending that helped return American gold to Europe became a flood as the Vietnam War spread across Asia
after 1962. The Treasury kept the dollar's exchange rate stable by selling gold via the London Gold Pool at $35 an ounce. Finally,
in August 1971, President Nixon stopped the drain by closing the Gold Pool and halting gold convertibility of the dollar.
There was no plan for what would happen next. Most observers viewed cutting the dollar's link to gold as a defeat for the United
States. It certainly ended the postwar financial order as designed in 1944. But what happened next was just the reverse of a defeat.
No longer able to buy gold after 1971 (without inciting strong U.S. disapproval), central banks found only one asset in which to
hold their balance-of-payments surpluses: U.S. Treasury debt. These securities no longer were "as good as gold." The United States
issued them at will to finance soaring domestic budget deficits.
By shifting from gold to the dollars thrown off by the U.S. balance-of-payments deficit, the foundation of global monetary reserves
came to be dominated by the U.S. military spending that continued to flood foreign central banks with surplus dollars. America's
balance-of-payments deficit thus supplied the dollars that financed its domestic budget deficits and bank credit creation – via foreign
central banks recycling U.S. foreign spending back to the U.S. Treasury.
In effect, foreign countries have been taxed without representation over how their loans to the U.S. Government are employed.
European central banks were not yet prepared to create their own sovereign wealth funds to invest their dollar inflows in foreign
stocks or direct ownership of businesses. They simply used their trade and payments surpluses to finance the U.S. budget deficit.
This enabled the Treasury to cut domestic tax rates, above all on the highest income brackets.
U.S. monetary imperialism confronted European and Asian central banks with a dilemma that remains today: If they do not turn around
and buy dollar assets, their currencies will rise against the dollar. Buying U.S. Treasury securities is the only practical way to
stabilize their exchange rates – and in so doing, to prevent their exports from rising in dollar terms and being priced out of dollar-area
markets.
The system may have developed without foresight, but quickly became deliberate. My book Super Imperialism sold best in
the Washington DC area, and I was given a large contract through the Hudson Institute to explain to the Defense Department exactly
how this extractive financial system worked. I was brought to the White House to explain it, and U.S. geostrategists used my book
as a how-to-do-it manual (not my original intention).
Attention soon focused on the oil-exporting countries. After the U.S. quadrupled its grain export prices shortly after the 1971
gold suspension, the oil-exporting countries quadrupled their oil prices. I was informed at a White House meeting that U.S. diplomats
had let Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries know that they could charge as much as they wanted for their oil, but that the United
States would treat it as an act of war not to keep their oil proceeds in U.S. dollar assets.
This was the point at which the international financial system became explicitly extractive. But it took until 2009, for the first
attempt to withdraw from this system to occur. A conference was convened at Yekaterinburg, Russia, by the Shanghai Cooperation Organization
(SCO). The alliance comprised Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, Kirghizstan and Uzbekistan, with observer status for Iran, India,
Pakistan and Mongolia. U.S. officials asked to attend as observers, but their request was rejected.
The U.S. response has been to extend the new Cold War into the financial sector, rewriting the rules of international finance
to benefit the United States and its satellites – and to deter countries from seeking to break free from America's financial free
ride.
The IMF changes its rules to isolate Russia and China
Aiming to isolate Russia and China, the Obama Administration's confrontational diplomacy has drawn the Bretton Woods institutions
more tightly under US/NATO control. In so doing, it is disrupting the linkages put in place after World War II.
The U.S. plan was to hurt Russia's economy so much that it would be ripe for regime change ("color revolution"). But the effect
was to drive it eastward, away from Western Europe to consolidate its long-term relations with China and Central Asia. Pressing Europe
to shift its oil and gas purchases to U.S. allies, U.S. sanctions have disrupted German and other European trade and investment with
Russia and China. It also has meant lost opportunities for European farmers, other exporters and investors – and a flood of refugees
from failed post-Soviet states drawn into the NATO orbit, most recently Ukraine.
To U.S. strategists, what made changing IMF rules urgent was Ukraine's $3 billion debt falling due to Russia's National Wealth
Fund in December 2015. The IMF had long withheld credit to countries refusing to pay other governments. This policy aimed primarily
at protecting the financial claims of the U.S. Government, which usually played a lead role in consortia with other governments and
U.S. banks. But under American pressure the IMF changed its rules in January 2015. Henceforth, it announced, it would indeed be willing
to provide credit to countries in arrears other governments – implicitly headed by China (which U.S. geostrategists consider to be
their main long-term adversary), Russia and others that U.S. financial warriors might want to isolate in order to force neoliberal
privatization policies. [1] I provide the full
background in "The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia," December 9, 2015, available on michael-hudson.com, Naked
Capitalism , Counterpunch and Johnson's Russia List .
Article I of the IMF's 1944-45 founding charter
prohibits it from lending to a member engaged in civil war or at war with another member state, or for military purposes generally.
An obvious reason for this rule is that such a country is unlikely to earn the foreign exchange to pay its debt. Bombing Ukraine's
own Donbass region in the East after its February 2014 coup d'état destroyed its export industry, mainly to Russia.
Withholding IMF credit could have been a lever to force adherence to the Minsk peace agreements, but U.S. diplomacy rejected that
opportunity. When IMF head Christine Lagarde made a new loan to Ukraine in spring 2015, she merely expressed a verbal hope for peace.
Ukrainian President Porochenko announced the next day that he would step up his civil war against the Russian-speaking population
in eastern Ukraine. One and a half-billion dollars of the IMF loan were given to banker Ihor Kolomoiski and disappeared offshore,
while the oligarch used his domestic money to finance an anti-Donbass army. A million refugees were driven east into Russia; others
fled west via Poland as the economy and Ukraine's currency plunged.
The IMF broke four of its rules by lending to Ukraine: (1) Not to lend to a country that has no visible means to pay back the
loan (the "No More Argentinas" rule, adopted after the IMF's disastrous 2001 loan to that country). (2) Not to lend to a country
that repudiates its debt to official creditors (the rule originally intended to enforce payment to U.S.-based institutions). (3)
Not to lend to a country at war – and indeed, destroying its export capacity and hence its balance-of-payments ability to pay back
the loan. Finally (4), not to lend to a country unlikely to impose the IMF's austerity "conditionalities." Ukraine did agree to override
democratic opposition and cut back pensions, but its junta proved too unstable to impose the austerity terms on which the IMF insisted.
U.S. neoliberalism promotes privatization carve-ups of debtor countries
Since World War II the United States has used the Dollar Standard and its dominant role in the IMF and World Bank to steer
trade and investment along lines benefiting its own economy. But now that the growth of China's mixed economy has outstripped all
others while Russia finally is beginning to recover, countries have the option of borrowing from the Asian Infrastructure Investment
Bank (AIIB) and other non-U.S. consortia.
At stake is much more than just which nations will get the contracting and banking business. At issue is whether the philosophy
of development will follow the classical path based on public infrastructure investment, or whether public sectors will be privatized
and planning turned over to rent-seeking corporations.
What made the United States and Germany the leading industrial nations of the 20 th century – and more recently, China
– has been public investment in economic infrastructure. The aim was to lower the price of living and doing business by providing
basic services on a subsidized basis or freely. By contrast, U.S. privatizers have brought debt leverage to bear on Third World countries,
post-Soviet economies and most recently on southern Europe to force selloffs. Current plans to cap neoliberal policy with the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TPP), Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) go so far
as to disable government planning power to the financial and corporate sector.
American strategists evidently hoped that the threat of isolating Russia, China and other countries would bring them to heel if
they tried to denominate trade and investment in their own national currencies. Their choice would be either to suffer sanctions
like those imposed on Cuba and Iran, or to avoid exclusion by acquiescing in the dollarized financial and trade system and its drives
to financialize their economies under U.S. control.
The problem with surrendering is that this Washington Consensus is extractive and lives in the short run, laying the seeds
of financial dependency, debt-leveraged bubbles and subsequent debt deflation and austerity. The financial business plan is to carve
out opportunities for price gouging and corporate profits. Today's U.S.-sponsored trade and investment treaties would make governments
pay fines equal to the amount that environmental and price regulations, laws protecting consumers and other social policies might
reduce corporate profits. "Companies would be able to demand compensation from countries whose health, financial, environmental and
other public interest policies they thought to be undermining their interests, and take governments before extrajudicial tribunals.
These tribunals, organised under World Bank and UN rules, would have the power to order taxpayers to pay extensive compensation over
legislation seen as undermining a company's 'expected future profits.' "
This policy threat is splitting the world into pro-U.S. satellites and economies maintaining public infrastructure investment
and what used to be viewed as progressive capitalism. U.S.-sponsored neoliberalism supporting its own financial and corporate interests
has driven Russia, China and other members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization into an alliance to protect their economic self-sufficiency
rather than becoming dependent on dollarized credit enmeshing them in foreign-currency debt.
At the center of today's global split are the last few centuries of Western social and democratic reform. Seeking to follow
the classical Western development path by retaining a mixed public/private economy, China, Russia and other nations find it easier
to create new institutions such as the AIIB than to reform the dollar standard IMF and World Bank. Their choice is between short-term
gains by dependency leading to austerity, or long-term development with independence and ultimate prosperity.
The price of resistance involves risking military or covert overthrow. Long before the Ukraine crisis, the United States has
dropped the pretense of backing democracies. The die was cast in 1953 with the coup against Iran's secular government, and the 1954
coup in Guatemala to oppose land reform. Support for client oligarchies and dictatorships in Latin America in the 1960 and '70s was
highlighted by the overthrow of Allende in Chile and Operation Condor's assassination program throughout the continent. Under President
Barack Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, the United States has claimed that America's status as the world's "indispensible
nation" entitled it back the recent coups in Honduras and Ukraine, and to sponsor the NATO attack on Libya and Syria, leaving Europe
to absorb the refugees.
Germany's choice
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve. The industrial takeoff of Germany and other European nations involved
a long fight to free markets from the land rents and financial charges siphoned off by their landed aristocracies and bankers. That
was the essence of classical 19 th -century political economy and 20 th -century social democracy. Most economists
a century ago expected industrial capitalism to produce an economy of abundance, and democratic reforms to endorse public infrastructure
investment and regulation to hold down the cost of living and doing business. But U.S. economic diplomacy now threatens to radically
reverse this economic ideology by aiming to dismantle public regulatory power and impose a radical privatization agenda under the
TTIP and TAFTA.
Textbook trade theory depicts trade and investment as helping poorer countries catch up, compelling them to survive by becoming
more democratic to overcome their vested interests and oligarchies along the lines pioneered by European and North American industrial
economies. Instead, the world is polarizing, not converging. The trans-Atlantic financial bubble has left a legacy of austerity
since 2008. Debt-ridden economies are being told to cope with their downturns by privatizing their public domain.
The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions. American intransigence threatens to
force an either/or choice in what looms as a seismic geopolitical shift over the proper role of governments: Should their public
sectors provide basic services and protect populations from predatory monopolies, rent extraction and financial polarization?
Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath. The principle that needed to be voiced
was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival on the altar of inter-government and private
debt demands. The concept of nationhood embodied in the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia based international law on the principle of parity
of sovereign states and non-interference. Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies and tear economies
apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable.
The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's democratic
destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic
leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy, between oligarchy
and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation, and probably for
the remainder of the 21 st century.
Endnotes
[1] I provide the full background in
"The IMF Changes its Rules to Isolate China and Russia," December 9, 2015, available on michael-hudson.com, Naked Capitalism
, Counterpunch and Johnson's Russia List .
"Austerity" is such a misused word these days. What the Allies did to Germany after Versailles was austerity, and everyone paid
dearly for it.
What the IMF and the Western Banking Cartel do to third world countries is akin to a pusher hopping up addicts on debt and
then taking it away while stripping them of their assets, pretty much hurting only the people of the third world country; certainly
not the WBC, and almost certainly not the criminal elite who took the deal.
The Austerity everyone complains about in the developed world these days is a joke, hardly austerity, for it has never meant
more than doing a little less deficit-spending than in prior periods, e.g. UK Labour whining about "Austerity" is a joke, as the
UK debt has done nothing but grow, which in terms understandable to simple folk like me means they are spending more than they
can afford to carry.
" The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions "
In the whole article not a word about the euro, also an instrument of imperialism, that mainly benefits Germany, the country
that has to maintain a high level of exports, in order to feed the Germans, and import raw materials for Germany's industries.
Isolating China and Russia, with the other BRICS countries, S Africa, Brazil, India, dangerous game.
This effort forced China and Russia to close cooperation, the economic expression of this is the Peking Petersburg railway, with
a hub in Khazakstan, where the containers are lifted from the Chinese to the Russian system, the width differs.
Four days for the trip.
The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI.
Let us hope that history does not repeat itself in the nuclear era.
Edward Mead Earle, Ph.D., 'Turkey, The Great Powers and The Bagdad Railway, A study in Imperialism', 1923, 1924, New York
The U.S. response has been to extend the new Cold War into the financial sector, rewriting the rules of international finance
to benefit the United States and its satellites – and to deter countries from seeking t o break free from America's
financial free ride .
Nah, the NY banksters wouldn't dream of doing such a thing; would they?
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve
What I said, and beautifully put, the whole article.
World War I may well have been an important way-point, but the miserable mercantile modus operandi was well established
long before.
An interesting A/B case:
a) wiki/Anglo-Persian Oil Company
"In 1901 William Knox D'Arcy, a millionaire London socialite, negotiated an oil concession with Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar of
Persia. He financed this with capital he had made from his shares in the highly profitable Mount Morgan mine in Queensland, Australia.
D'Arcy assumed exclusive rights to prospect for oil for 60 years in a vast tract of territory including most of Iran. In exchange
the Shah received Ł20,000 (Ł2.0 million today),[1] an equal amount in shares of D'Arcy's company, and a promise of 16% of future
profits." Note the 16% = ~1/6, the rest going off-shore.
b) The Greens in Aus researched the resources sector in Aus, to find that it is 83% 'owned' by off-shore entities. Note
that 83% = ~5/6, which goes off-shore. Coincidence?
Then see what happened when the erstwhile APOC was nationalized; the US/UK perpetrated a coup against the democratically elected
Mossadegh, eventual blow-back resulting in the 1979 revolution, basically taking Iran out of 'the West.'
Note that in Aus, the democratically elected so-called 'leaders' not only allow exactly this sort of economic rape, they
actively assist it by, say, crippling the central bank and pleading for FDI = selling our, we the people's interests, out. Those
traitor-leaders are reversing 'Enlightenment' provisions, privatising whatever they can and, as Michael Hudson well points out
the principles, running Aus into debt and austerity.
We the people are powerless passengers, and to add insult to injury, the taxpayer-funded AusBC lies to us continually. Ho,
hum; just like the mainly US/Z MSM and the BBC do – all corrupt and venal. Bah!
Now, cue the trolls: "But Russia/China are worse!"
The immediate question facing Germany and the rest of Western Europe is how long they will sacrifice their trade and investment
opportunities with Russia, Iran and other economies by adhering to U.S.-sponsored sanctions.
US banking oligarchs will expend the last drop of our blood to prevent a such a linking, just as they were willing to sacrifice
our blood and treasure in WW1 and 2, as is alluded to here.:
Today's global financial crisis can be traced back to World War I and its aftermath.
Excellent.:
The principle that needed to be voiced was the right of sovereign nations not to be forced to sacrifice their economic survival
on the altar of inter-government and private debt demands Without a global alternative to letting debt dynamics polarize societies
and tear economies apart, monetary imperialism by creditor nations is inevitable.
This is a gem of a summary.:
The past century's global fracture between creditor and debtor economies has interrupted what seemed to be Europe's
democratic destiny to empower governments to override financial and other rentier interests. Instead, the West is following
U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. This conflict between creditors and democracy,
between oligarchy and economic growth (and indeed, survival) will remain the defining issue of our epoch over the next generation,
and probably for the remainder of the 21st century.
Instead, the West is following U.S. diplomatic leadership back into the age when these interests ruled governments. It's
important to note that such interests have ruled (owned, actually) imperial Britain for centuries and the US since its inception,
and the anti-federalists knew it.
Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain.
You will find all the strength of this country in the hands of your enemies [ ed comment: the money grubbers ]
Patrick Henry June 5 and 7, 1788―1788-1789 Petersburg, Virginia edition of the Debates and other Proceedings . . . Of the
Virginia Convention of 1788
The Constitution had been laid down under unacceptable auspices; its history had been that of a coup d'état.
It had been drafted, in the first place, by men representing special economic interests. Four-fifths of them were
public creditors, one-third were land speculators, and one-fifth represented interests in shipping, manufacturing, and merchandising.
Most of them were lawyers. Not one of them represented the interest of production -- Vilescit origine tali.
- Albert Jay Nock [Excerpted from chapter 5 of Albert Jay Nock's Jefferson, published in 1926]
"After World War I the U.S. Government deviated from what had been traditional European policy – forgiving military support
costs among the victors. U.S. officials demanded payment for the arms shipped to its Allies in the years before America entered
the Great War in 1917. The Allies turned to Germany for reparations to pay these debts." The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street
super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler.
But they didn't invent anything. They learned from their
WASP forebears in the British Empire, whose banking back to Oliver Cromwell had become inextricably entangled with Jewish money
and Jewish interests to the point that Jews per capita dominated it even at the height of the British Empire, when simpleton WASPs
assume that WASPs truly ran everything, and that WASP power was for the good of even the poorest WASPs.
To Michael Hudson,
Great article. Evidence based, factually argued, enjoyably readable.
Replacements for the dollar dominated financial system are well into development. Digital dollars, credit cards, paypal, stock
and currency exchange online platforms, and perhaps most intriguing The exponential rise of Bitcoin and similar crypto-currencies.
The internet is also exponentially exposing the screwing we peasants have been getting by the psychopath, narcissistic, hedonistic,
predatory lenders and controllers. Next comes the widespread, easily usable, and inexpensive cell phone apps, social media exposures,
alternative websites (like Unz.com), and other technologies that will quickly identify every lying, evil, jerk so they can be
neutrilized / avoided
"Textbook trade theory depicts trade and investment as helping poorer countries catch up, compelling them to survive by
becoming more democratic to overcome their vested interests and oligarchies along the lines pioneered by European and North
American industrial economies."
I must be old; the economic textbooks I had did explain the benefits of freer trade among nations using Ricardo and Trade Indifference
Curves, but didn't prescribe any one political system being fostered by or even necessary for the benefits of international trade
to be reaped.
to be honest, this way of running things only need to last for 10-20 more years before automation will replace 800 million jobs.
then we will have a few trillionaire overlords unless true AI comes online. by that point nothing matters as we will become zoo
animals.
What the IMF and the Western Banking Cartel do to third world countries is akin to a pusher hopping up addicts on debt and
then taking it away while stripping them of their assets, pretty much hurting only the people of the third world country; certainly
not the WBC, and almost certainly not the criminal elite who took the deal.
That's true and the criminals do similar asset stripping to their own as well, through various means.
It's always the big criminals against the rest of us.
The Berlin Baghdad railway was an important cause for WWI.
Bingo. Stopping it was a huge factor. There was no way the banksters of the world were going to let that go forward, nor
were they going to let Germany and Russia link up in any other ways. They certainly were not about to allow any threats to the
Suez Canal nor any chance to let the oil fields slip from their control either.
The wars were also instigated to prevent either Germany or Russia having control of, and free access to warm water ports
and the wars also were an excuse to steal vast amounts of wealth from both Germany and Russia through various means.
All pious and pompous pretexts aside, economics was the motive for (the) war (s), and the issues are not settled to this day.
I.e., it's the same class of monstrously insatiable criminals who want everything for themselves who're causing the major troubles
of the day.
Unfortunately, as long as we have SoB's who're eager to sacrifice our blood and treasure for their
benfit, things will never change.
The golden rule is one thing. The paper rule is something else.
May you live in interesting times.
The golden rule is for dreamers, unfortunately. Those who control paper money rule, and your wish has been granted; we live
in times that are both interesting and fascinating, but are nevertheless the same old thing. Only the particular particulars
have changed.
Essentially, the anti-EU and anti-euro line that Professor Hudson has being pushing for years, which has now morphed into a pro-Putin
line as the anti-EU faction in the US have sought to use Putin as a "useful idiot" to destroy the EU. Since nobody in Europe reads
these articles, Ii doesn't really matter and I certainly don't see any EU leader following the advice of someone who has never
concealed his hostility to the EU's very existence: note the use of the racist slur "PIIGS" to refer to certain EU Member States.
Thus, Professor Hudson is simply pushing the "let Putin win in Ukraine" line dressed up in fine-sounding economic jargon.
Since nobody in Europe reads these articles, Ii doesn't really matter
None of it rally matters anyway, no matter how valid. To paraphrase Thucydides, the money grubbers do what they want and the
rest of us are forced to suck it up and limp along.
and I certainly don't see any EU leader following the advice
I doubt that that's Hudson's intent in writing the article. I see it as his attempt to explain the situation to those of us
who care about them even though our concern is pretty much useless.
I do thank him for taking the time to pen this stuff which I consider worthwhile and high quality.
That sounds good but social media is the weapon of choice in the EU too. Lot's of kids know and love Hudson. Any half capable
writer who empathetically explains why you're getting fucked is going to have some followers. Watering, nutrition, weeding. Before
too long you'll be on the Eurail to your destination.
said: "The Yank banker, the Yankee Wall Street super rich, set off a process of greed that led to Hitler." If true, so what?
That's a classic example of 'garbage in, garbage out'. http://www.codoh.com
This is not how the Enlightenment was supposed to evolve
In fact, this is exactly how it was supposed to work. The wave of liberal democracies was precisely to overturn the monarchies,
which were the last bulwark protecting the people from the full tyranny of the financiers, who were, by nature, one-world internationalists.
The real problem with this is that any form of monetary arrangement involves an implied trusteeship, with obligations on,
as well as benefits for, the trustee. The US is so abusing its trusteeship through the continual use of an irresponsible
sanctions regime that it risks a good portion of the world economy abandoning its system for someone else's, which may be perceived
to be run more responsibility. The disaster scenario would be the US having therefore in the future to access that other system
to purchase oil or minerals, and having that system do to us what we previously did to them -- sanction us out.
The proper
use by the US of its controlled system thus should be a defensive one -- mainly to act so fairly to all players that it, not someone
else, remains in control of the dominant worldwide exchange system. This sensible course of conduct, unfortunately, is not being
pursued by the US.
there is fuzzy, and then there is very fuzzy, and then there is the fuzziness compounded many-fold. The latter is this article.
Here from wiki: "
" Marx believed that capitalism was inherently built upon practices of usury and thus inevitably leading to the separation
of society into two classes: one composed of those who produce value and the other, which feeds upon the first one. In "Theories
of Surplus Value" (written 1862-1863), he states " that interest (in contrast to industrial profit) and rent (that is the form
of landed property created by capitalist production itself) are superfetations (i.e., excessive accumulations) which are not
essential to capitalist production and of which it can rid itself."
Wiki goes on to identify "rentier" as used by Marx, to be the same thing as "capitalists." What the above quotation says
is that capitalism CAN rid itself of genuine rent capital. First, the feudal rents that were extracted by landowners were NOT
part of a free market system. Serfdom was only one part of unfree conditions. A general condition of anarchy in rules and laws
by petty principalities characteristic of feudalism, both contained commerce and human beings. There was no freedom, political
or economic.
The conflation (collapsing) of rents and interest is a Marxist error which expands into complete nonsense when a competitive
economy has replaced feudal conditions. ON top of that, profits from a business, firm, or industrial enterprise are NOT rents.
Any marxist is a fool to pretend otherwise, and is just another ideological (False consciousness ) fanatic.
Germany loans money back to the poorer nations who buy her exports just as China loans money to the United States (they purchase
roughly a third of our Treasury bonds) so that Americans can continue to buy Chinese manufactured goods.
The role to be played by the USA in the "new world order" is that of being the farmer to the world. The meticulous Asians will
make stuff.
The problem with this is that it is based on 19th century notions of manufacturing. Technique today is vastly more complicated
than it was in the 1820′s and a nation must do everything in its power to protect and nurture its manufacturing and scientific
excellence. In the United States we have been giving this away to our competitors. We educate their children at our taxpayer's
expense and they take the knowledge gained back to their native countries where, with state subsidies, they build factories that
put Americans out of work. We fall further and further behind.
"... "The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since. ..."
"... According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed in the United
States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist countries in Eastern
Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark estimates, the wealth
held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable in magnitude to total
household financial assets held in Russia. ..."
"... For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it is not
the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel. ..."
"... And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts dismembering
the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the Western people have
with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without serious dying on our
side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience. ..."
The people who worked in int'l finance in the 90s (representing countries to the WB and IMF) knew about the criminal callousness
of these institutions when pushing 'austerity' or 'reform' policies. Local elites sometimes were complacent and profited (those
privatizations! those newly opened markets!), sometimes resisted, but the US and the multilateral system –financial or otherwise–
are ruthless and very hard to resist.
Many countries suffered, not because they were Russian or Brazilian or Mexican, but because the opportunity for gain was there.
There's some common ground between the reds and whites in that the reds tapped into nationalist sentiments, hence the wars of
national liberation around the world being supported by the communists: Korea, Vietnam, insurgencies in Latin America, Africa,
etc. The script has flipped with the western countries now being the 'godless' ones who are trying to destroy religion, the family
and traditional ways of life. The 1% were horrified that there was an ideology out there that advocated taking their loot away
so they used all their resources in combatting it, even being willing to take the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in
doing so. They'd take the world down with them rather than lose their positions of power and money. Now that the ideology is no
longer there it's just back to the business of robbing everyone weaker than them. All the hysteria about Putin is simply that
he's built up the Russian state to where they can resist and that he's not a fellow slaveholder like them.
The intervention in Syria has unhinged parts of the west where they thought they could rob and kill anywhere they pleased but
now have been successfully resisted. Political systems come and go but the people have endured for the past thousand years, something
the fat cats of the west are trying to destroy to enlarge their slave plantation.
" Russia has greater economic disparity than any other major global power. In 2016, Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report found
that the wealthiest 10% of people in Russia controlled 89% of the country's wealth ..
"The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since.
The headline findings: official Russian estimates drastically understate national inequality; Russia is as unequal as the USA
or even moreso; Russian inequality is more intense than the inequality in other post-Soviet states and in post-Deng China.
This paper combines national accounts, survey, wealth and fiscal data (including recently released tax data on high-income
taxpayers) in order to provide consistent series on the accumulation and distribution of income and wealth in Russia from the
Soviet period until the present day. We find that official survey-based measures vastly under-estimate the rise of inequality
since 1990. According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed
in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist
countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark
estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable
in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia.
From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016 [Filip Novokmet, Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman/World
Wealth and Income Database]"
People used to stage revolutions in order to bring communism to their countries. Plenty of examples for that: Russia, China,
Cuba and many others. Of course, those people were deluded, right? Who would want to bring a system that preaches economic equality?
It must be someone who is out of their mind. Has there ever been a capitalist revolution where someone took up arms trying to
bring capitalism to their country? Must be because it's such a humane and desirable system. Also, a lot of people think that Islam
is a backward religion. Really? Then how come it tolerates socialism (communism), better than Christianity ever did? Libya, Iraq,
Syria, Afghanistan they were all socialist at some point. That's why the greatest democracy set their sights on them to destroy
them. Because, you see, by their calculations, no matter how extremist and backward the Islam gets, it's still more progressive
than socialism or communism. Helluva math there. The game has always been about preserving capitalism, and not the most benign
version either. Which is too bad, because capitalism has been known to tolerate dictatorship, fascism, Nazism, slavery – pretty
much the ugliest forms of government the sick human mind can come up with, but it can't tolerate little bit of socialism. Because
you see, socialism is worse than any of those lovely political systems. Democracy (capitalism) is too pure for that, such a fragile
and delicate thing that it is.
I am surprised Sweden hasn't been bombed yet, for their flirting with socialism, but the way the things are going over there,
they don't have to be bombed. They did themselves in by following someone's stupid ideas about multiculturalism – which of course
is also a form of socialism – racial one, instead the real deal – the economic socialism that the greatest democracy of them all
is so afraid of.
When the Serbians in different parts of Yugoslavia started being attacked by the West, I was constantly pointing out that in recent
times, since WW1, an attack on Serbia has been a kind of introduction to an attack on Russia. In other words, I had no doubt that
Russia was next.
But, there is one huge difference between Serbia and Russia. Whilst the Serbians killed very few of those Western Zionist military
mercenaries who were killing Serbians directly or using their Croat, Muslim and Albanian proxies, if attacked the Russian military
could kill hundreds of thousands of the Western mercenaries. This is why whilst the war on Serbia was real and bloody only on
Serbians and the Bosnian Muslim proxies, the war on Russia would be totally disastrous for the Anglozionist Empire. This is the
only reason a shooting war on Russia has not started already.
For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it
is not the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel.
And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts
dismembering the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the
Western people have with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without
serious dying on our side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience.
Well, what evidence have you for asserting that Putin is a thug? You saw through the media's false reporting earlier as you
admit, so how come you again swallow the load of marbles that they dish out?
And while Putin may or may not be feared by "near abroad" he certainly is feared by those who seek total dominance of the planet.
The thing is, he is not an easy pushover and that is what is behind the thug claims. Many thinking people admire his intellect,
statesmanship, and skill in dealing with major problems of our times. The media also hates him because he shows up the western
leaders for the clowns that they are.
A principled US Government would have dealt very differently with Russia and Putin. There is no inherent conflict of interest
with Russia once global dominance is discarded as the main policy objective.
{The only people that fear Putin is the near abroad, .}
Sure, if you say so, Bub.
Texas* is, of course, 'near aboard' .
[Russia has begun testing of its new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the RS-28 Sarmat. Sarmat can carry a payload
of up to ten tons of nukes. The missile system is set to enter service in 2018.
The RS-28 Sarmat is the first entirely new Russian ICBM in decades. The heavyweight missile weighs 100 tons and can boost 10 tons.
Russia claims the Sarmat can lift 10 heavyweight warheads, or 16 lighter ones, and Russian state media has described it as being
able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France.]
_______________________
*
[Russia's New ICBM Could "Wipe Out Texas"]
Wow, this is the most refreshing and clear minded comment I've seen here in a while. Nice job WorkingClass, you've managed
to keep your mind clear and not buy into the BS. You've given me some hope Thank you.
The supposed leaders of the West are busy trying to replace or at the very least water down their own populations with a totally
different set of people from far away. Obviously these supposedly democratic leaders loathe what are supposed to be their own
people but rather see all those below them as just so many replaceable units of labor, the mark of a "slaveholder". Putin has
helped his people immensely. Life expectancies had plummeted into the 50′s and that's now been improved greatly as well as living
standards. He's popular because he's done much for the people he identifies with, unlike Western leaders who hold their noses
when anywhere near the citizenry. If the Russians like him then they must not be as worried about some issues as critics outside
the country appear to be.
It is hard to find people in the West who "hate the Russian people themselves"; but in place of hatred there is definitely
fear – fear of Russia's military strength.
Disagree. The enormous propagandistic effort to demonize Russia in the West, not only reveals fear. It also reveals hate, at
least on most of the elites. Most people are indifferent toward Russia but elites definitively have fear to the bear. You can
test some people by simply naming "Russia" and you will see on their eyes a quite irrationala mix of hate and fear. I think this
is result of an Orwellian propaganda effort aimed at injecting fear to "Eurasia".
This fear is exaggerated by the US military-industrial complex for its own purposes;
Given any two races or culture , what they are and what I think of them hardly matters. However pitted against each other it
will cultivate and create good conditions for the scum of both of them and embroil the rest in the conflict. It is an against
of chaos for a hostile order.
Right. Those were capitalist revolutions. You are bang on. Capitalism is one of the most tolerant systems of all kinds of extremism,
as I already mentioned. Capitalism has been known to tolerate monarchy, fascism, Nazism, various forms of dictatorships, slavery,
pretty much everything. But they draw the line at tolerating socialism, like it's the worst extremism they have ever tolerated.
My point is, capitalism is pretty robust system, it's not some delicate beauty that will fall apart if it comes in touch with
socialism. Democracy is only a window dressing, it has never been about democracy, it has always been about capitalism.
There's nothing easier nowadays than becoming a Kremlin (or any other kind of) Troll. Just start talking about things as they
are and you're half way through. Keep talking that way a bit longer, and you'll forever become another precious source of income
for the army of no-talent crooks with unlimited rights and zero oversee from those for whom they officially work. These guys are
simply used to build their entire careers and financial well-beings by adjusting reality to their needs. They've been doing it
for decades. Why not, as long as the true bosses are happy ? Why not, when the MSM will make population to swallow anything, no
matter how idiotic and illogical it is ?
Heritage Foundation is just a neocon swamp filled with "national security parasites". What you can expect from them ?
Notable quotes:
"... A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, " Maintaining the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." ..."
"... These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded in return. ..."
"... No doubt both corporations will continue to look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding. ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative." ..."
According to recent
reports the Heritage Foundation, clearly the most established and many would say politically influential conservative think tank
in Washington, is considering David Trulio, Lockheed Martin vice president and longtime lobbyist for the defense industry, to be
its next president. While Heritage's connection to Washington's sprawling national security industry is already well-established,
naming Trulio as its president might be seen as gilding the lily.
If anything, reading this report made me more aware of the degree to which the "conservative policy community" in Washington depends
on the whims and interests of particular donors.
And this relationship is apparently no longer something to be concealed or embarrassed by. One can now be open about being in
the pocket of the defense industry. Trulio's potential elevation to Heritage president at what we can assume will be an astronomical
salary, will no doubt grease the already well-oiled pipeline of funds from major contractors to this "conservative" foundation, which
already operates with an
annual disclosed budget of almost $100 million.
A 2009 Heritage Foundation report, "
Maintaining
the Superiority of America's Defense Industrial Base ," called for further government investment in aircraft weaponry for "ensuring
a superior fighting force" and "sustaining international stability." In 2011, senior national security fellow James Carafano
wrote " Five Steps
to Defend America's Industrial Defense Base ," which complained about a "fifty billion dollar under-procurement by the Pentagon"
for buying new weaponry. In 2016,
Heritage made the case for
several years of reinvestment to get the military back on "sound footing," with an increase in fiscal year 2016 described as "an
encouraging start."
These special pleas pose a question: which came first, Heritage's heavy dependence on funds from defense giants, or the foundation's
belief that unless we steadily increase our military arsenal we'll be endangering "international stability"? Perhaps the answer lies
somewhere in the middle: someone who is predisposed to go in a certain direction may be more inclined to do so if he is being rewarded
in return. Incidentally, the 2009 position paper seems to be directing the government to throw more taxpayer dollars to Boeing
than to its competitor Lockheed. But it seems both defense giants have landed a joint contract this year to produce a new submersible
for the Navy, so it may no longer be necessary to pick sides on that one at least. No doubt both corporations will continue to
look after Heritage, which will predictably call for further increases, whether they be in aerospace or shipbuilding.
Although one needn't reduce everything to dollars and cents, if we're looking at the issues Heritage and other likeminded foundations
are likely to push today, it's far more probable they'll be emphasizing the national security state rather than, say, opposition
to gay marriage or the defense of traditional gender roles. There's lots more money to be made advocating for the former rather than
the latter. In May 2013, Heritage
sponsored a formal debate between "two conservatives" and "two liberals" on the issue of defense spending, with Heritage and
National Review presenting the "conservative" side. I wondered as I listened to part of this verbal battle why is was considered
"conservative" to call for burdening American taxpayers with massive increases in the purchase of Pentagon weaponry and planes that
take
17 years to get off the ground.
Like American higher education, Conservatism Inc. is very big business. Whatever else it's about rates a very far second to
keeping the money flowing. "Conservative" positions are often simply causes for which foundations and media enterprises that have
the word "conservative" attached to them are paid to represent. It is the label carried by an institution or publication, not necessarily
the position it takes, that makes what NR or Heritage advocates "conservative."
In any event, Mr. Trulio won't have to travel far if he takes the Heritage helm. He and his corporation are already ensconced
only a few miles away from Heritage's Massachusetts Avenue headquarters, if the information provided by Lockheed Martin is correct.
It says: "Headquartered in Bethesda, Maryland, Lockheed Martin is a global security and aerospace company that employs approximately
98,000 people worldwide and is principally engaged in the research, design, development, manufacture, integration and sustainment
of advanced technology systems, products and services." A company like that can certainly afford to underwrite a think tank -- if
the price is right.
Paul Gottfried is Raffensperger Professor of Humanities Emeritus at Elizabethtown College, where he taught for twenty-five
years. He is a Guggenheim recipient and a Yale PhD. He writes for many websites and scholarly journals and is the author of thirteen
books, most recently Fascism: Career of a Concept and Revisions and Dissents . His books have been translated into multiple
languages and seem to enjoy special success in Eastern Europe.
The USA has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more
than a decade. How can free societies protect themselves?"
Notable quotes:
"... These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick, and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire. ..."
Billionaires, both liberal and conservative ones, own, and their corporations advertise in
and their 'charities' donate to, America's mainstream (and also many 'alternative news')
media.
They do this not so as to profit directly from the national 'news'media (a money-losing
business, in itself), but so as to control the 'news' that the voting public (right and left)
are exposed to and thus will accept as being "mainstream" and will reject all else as being
"fringe" or even 'fake news', even if what's actually fake is, in fact, the billionaires' own
mainstream 'news', such as their 'news'media had most famously 'reported' about 'Saddam's WMD'
(but the'news'media never changed after that scandal -- even after having pumped uncritically
that blatant lie to the public).
Have America's numerous foreign coups and outright military invasions (including Iraq 2003)
been the result of fake-news that was published by the mainstream 'news'media, or only by some
of the 'alternative news' sites that mirror what the mainstream ones have been 'reporting'
(passing along the Government's lies just like the mainstream ones do)? Obviously, the
catastrophic fake news -- the fake news that 'justified' America's invading and destroying
Iraq, Libya, and many other countries -- was all published in the mainstream 'news'media.
That's where to go for the really dangerous lies: it's the mainstream 'news'media. If those
media, and their Government (whose lies they stenographically report to the public) will now
censor the Internet, such as is increasingly happening not only in the US but in its allies
including the
European Union , then the only 'information' that the public will have access to, at all,
will be the billionaires' lies. Have we already almost reached 1984 , finally, in 2017?
Two typical examples of this coordinated mass-deception-operation happened to be showing at
the top of the magazine-pile at an office recently and struck my attention there, because of
the ordinariness of the propaganda that was being pumped.
One of them was the cover of TIME magazine, dated "July 24, 2017" and with the cover
headlined "RED HANDED: The Russia
Scandal Hits Home" , overprinting onto the face of Donald Trump Jr., as their
menacing-looking cover-image. That cover-story, as published inside, was titled "How Donald Trump
Jr.'s Emails Have Cranked Up the Heat on His Family" , and it used such phrases as
"potentially treasonous" and "Russia is the one country that could physically destroy America"
(as if it weren't also the case that US is the one country that could physically destroy
Russia, and very much the case also that possession of the weaponry isn't any indication of
being evil, such as this particular propagandist was implicitly assuming). Hillary Clinton's
V.P. running-mate was reported to be "saying that these fresh revelations move the Russia
investigation into the realms of 'perjury, false statements and even, potentially,
treason.'"
These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them
up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick,
and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and
centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's
President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and
many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward
Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in
precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire.
The other example was the cover of The New Republic magazine, dated "December 2017" and it
simply headlined in its center, "HOW TO
ATTACK A DEMOCRACY ", and the opening page of the article inside was bannered "WEAKEN FROM
WITHIN" and below that in the printed edition (the December physical issue of the magazine)
was:
"Russian manipulation of American social media in the 2016 presidential election took the
United States by surprise. But Moscow has been honing an information-age art of war -- through
fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can these
societies protect themselves?"
The online version of that article (which was dated 2 November 2017) opened almost the
same: "Moscow has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news,
disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can free societies protect
themselves?"
The unspoken assumption in this article is that the US CIA hasn't been doing the same thing
-- and doing it even
worse than the old (and thankfully expired) KGB ever did. (And the CIA, even after the end
of communism as its supposed enemy until 1991, still does far worse to other
countries than Russia's FSB does or ever did.)
Underlying both the TIME article and the TNR article are unstated speculations about the
American situation, which are based upon thin facts such as that "at least $100,000 in ads purchased through 470 phony Facebook pages
and accounts" were "using Facebook to
incite anti-black hatred and anti-Muslim prejudice and fear while provoking extremism" ,
and that supposedly somehow (they never say how) such puny expenses threw the
multi-billion-dollar 2017 US Presidential election to Trump. How is a case such as that, to be
viewed by an intelligent reader as constituting anything but propaganda for the weapons-making
firms such as Lockheed Martin, who benefit from such international anti-Russia hate-spewing to
NATO countries, which are those firms' major markets (other than Saudi Arabia, and the other
fundamentalist-Sunni kingdoms that together constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council or "GCC"
nations, which hate Shiite Iran as much as the US regime hates Russia)?
Also among the underlying and unstated speculations in the background here is the older
mass-media allegation about Russia's allegedly having spied and swayed the US election by
'hacking' it, which is likewise being pumped by Democrats and other opponents of Mr. Trump,
alleging that 'Russia hacked the election' .
And, so, for an example of the flimsiness of those allegations, one of the two main
'authorities' who are the source of that, the Bush and Obama Administration's James Clapper,
was headlined at Politico on 7 July 2017, "Clapper: No
evidence others besides Russia hacked US election" . Mr. Clapper happens to be a
military-industrial-complex revolving-door 'intelligence' 'professional' whom, on 10 February
2011, even Politico was
reporting to be "backing away from comments he made Thursday calling Egypt's branch of the
Muslim Brotherhood movement 'largely secular'," and who had also covered-up George W.
Bush's lies about 'WMD in Iraq' so as to protect the liars. On 29 October 2003, the New
York Times stenographically passed along his deception about the non-existent WMD by
headlining, "WEAPONS SEARCH; Iraqis Removed
Arms Material, US Aide Says" and reported, "The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired
lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into
Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons
material 'unquestionably' had been moved out of Iraq." No evidence ever existed that Saddam
Hussein still had any WMD after the U.N. monitors (UNSCOM) destroyed the last of them in 1998;
but Clapper 'unquestionably' 'knew' to the contrary -- though no evidence was ever made
available to the contrary of UNSCOM's reports, and lots of evidence existed that Bush simply
lied about the entire matter .
Both of the official 'experts' who are promoting the Russiagate charges, are longtime, and
repeatedly, exposed liars - but that's the best they can do, always assuming that the public
don't know that these people are propagandists for the military-industrial complex , not real
'public servants' at all.
The fake-news masters are certainly the mainstream 'news'media themselves - and they, and
the billionaires and centi-millionaires who own and control them, are the real megaphones by
which the US dictatorship constantly fools the American people (and the publics in its allied
nations), to keep in line, for the aristocracy .
if russia hacked the election why didn't the dnc ask, beg the fbi to examine the dnc email
servers and prove it in detail? instead the dnc put forward the highly questionable
crowdstrike and guccifer 2.0 materials.
why hasn't evidence from the vaunted national security agency, as shown by snowden to
record everything, been presented to demonstrate russian hacking?
how can the fbi still maintain it never investigated the seth rich murder? even if seymour
hersh is right and it wasn't connected to rich's very probable theft of dnc email data and
its transmission to wikileaks, it certainly could have been and merited checking out. either
the fbi is lying or incompetent (or both).
i sent a request to judicial watch (potentially explosive materials about the clinton
lynch "tarmac" meeting to be released today) asking them to file freedom of information suits
on the first and third paragraphs above. we must break out of the horrible zionist takeover
of the u.s. that is explained in detail in chris bollyn's new book and video, the war on
terror; the plot to rule the middle east . it is also the plot to rule the u.s.a.
"... That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every day. ..."
"... Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"... ..."
WaPo Reporter Caught On Hidden Camera Being A Bit Too Honest; Admits "No Evidence" Of
Trump-Russia CollusionTyler Durden Nov 29, 2017 9:00 PM 0 SHARES
CNN and
New York Times , Project Veritas has now set their sights on the Washington Post. In a
candid conversation with an undercover Project Veritas journalist, the Post's National Security
Director, Adam Entous, put himself in danger of being a bit too honest, at least by his
employer's standards, by admitting that "there's no evidence of [Trump-Russia collusion] that
I've seen so far." Entous goes on to admit that "it's a fucking crap shoot" and that he has no
idea how Mueller's investigation might turn out.
Entous : "Our reporting has not taken us to a plcae where I would be able to say with any
confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots
with the Russians. There's no evidence of that that I've seen so far."
PV Journalist : "There has to be something, right?"
Entous "Maybe, maybe not. It could just be lower-level people being manipulated or
manipulating, but it's very hard to, it's really...It's a fucking black box."
"We've seen a lot of flirtation, if you will, between them but nothing that, in my opinion,
would rank as actual collusion. Now that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means we
haven't found it yet. Or maybe it doesn't exist."
"I mean it's a fucking crap shoot. I literally have no prediction whatsoever as to what
would happen, and I do all the stuff for the Post on this so..."
Today we show you our second undercover video within @washingtonpost this time exposing
Nat'l Security Director Adam Entous who ADMITS that the Russia story is a "f*cking crap shoot"
and "maybe it doesn't exist at all." pic.twitter.com/qeEfk9oCKA
Of course, on the surface, Entous' opinions are not that explosive and likely mimic the
views held by many Americans...namely that despite 1.5 years of investigations no one has
presented any actual, tangible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different
Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of
narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every
day.
Like this one...
Or this one if you prefer...
Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by
Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing
instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to
see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently
CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"...
...but O'Keefe seemed to not be all that defensive in his response below...which presumably
means we'll all be treated to many more undercover stings in the years to come.
MSM want to destroy @Project_Veritas . They see us as
their enemy. When we expose them, they are lose their power. We have a stone lodged between
Goliath's eyes. They want me to kneel down & apologize. I will not. We will keep pushing,
we will expose the truth. - @JamesOKeefeIIIpic.twitter.com/vbBVxXtBD6
Apparently his WaPo thing didn't really work, but they can't all be winners. His exposing
of those DNC operatives during the campaign was brilliant. To this day I do not understand
why they were allowed to just get fired or resign from all their postings without an
indictment.
State Department is actually has dual function -- one is to be an intelligence agency. And as such it is fully responsible for the
current anti-Russian witch hunt. So the level of hypocrisy is simply staggering. But not surprising: way too many neocons infiltrated
the agency under Hillary Clinton and her predecessor.
The problem with responding to this move is that the USA is still the global superpower and technological leader in many areas,
including semiconductors. So Russians need to be very careful not to overstep the boundaries and slip into tip for tat mode.
The huge advantage of the USA is that it conducts its propaganda campaign against Russia mostly via private newspapers that have
foreign correspondents in Russia as well as fifth column of Russian neoliberals and their news outlets. Which are closely working with
the US sponsored NGO. Same is true for GB. Actually after reading Guardian correspondents coverage from Russia it is unclear whether
Guardian is a branch on MI6 or not ;-). I don not remember the name of a person who was expelled from Russia for collecting information
from the transmitter masked as a "stone" in Moscow park.
Some minor measures directly against "foreign financed" domestic new outlets actually could be more effective that sweeping registration
of (mostly ineffective and unpopular) US government channels as "foreign agents".
Notable quotes:
"... Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. It remarked that "legislation that allows .. to label media outlets as 'foreign agents' ... presents yet another threat to free media". It noted that "freedom of expression -- including speech and media ... is a universal human rights obligation". ..."
"... The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama administration. He and other 'intelligence' people found that RT ..."
"... The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT ..."
"... "We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we're doing right now," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee. ..."
"... "[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about human rights," he said. "Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it," via the state-owned news network. ..."
"... Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 - Annex I, originally published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center ..."
"... RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against "the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. ..."
"... RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use. ..."
"... RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national debt. ..."
"... RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information wars" against the Syrian Government. ..."
"... It is so embarrassing to live in a country where the government issues nothing but lies and hypocrisy. I realize that to the players it's all a game and maybe funny but to this citizen and probably others this game is putting our lives in danger,,, and we don't find that 'funny'. ..."
"... "And at that moment, we will have to repeat that the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Lebanese people, all the elites and all the leaders and peoples of the region should reflect, weigh and return to the question of the identity of the creators, supporters, advocates and promoters of ISIS, that enabled them to commit these terrorist massacres [US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar ], and the identity of those who have stood against ISIS, fought them, offered martyrs in this fight [Iran, Syria, Irak, Hezbollah, Russia] and inflicted a defeat on ISIS and all those who stand behind them. This is a discussion to be held with depth and strength so that the (Muslim) believers do not become victims twice of the same ills." ..."
"... After I have been writing about the fact that the Western hemisphere as a whole is no longer democratic and that the CIA and the NSA dictate the policies of the US regime and its vassals, my cell phone started to turn itself off and on frequently and now my Mac is turning itself on in the middle of the night and the hard drive indicator lights turn red - what they have never done before. Every option to "wake up on call" is disabled. For WiFi (turned off - no Wifi here) and Bluetooth. The Mac is only connected to the power outlet. ..."
"... The so called 'State Department' that has already a disturbing history of cooperation with Fascists throughout its existence, is now totally unhinged. It's actions make it clear beyond any doubt that the US is no longer and has likely not been since 2000 (or 1964, depending on view point) what goes for a 'democratic republic'. ..."
"... Illegal wars and toppling of democratically elected socialist governments for the Safety and Happiness of the American people? That must be it. ..."
"... Behind the persona, Trump may be far smarter than Obama or Clinton, and perhaps more dangerous as far as keeping the US empire alive, depending on which way he goes. I am starting think he won't create any new wars though, just let the neo-con establishment do their thing within a limit, to build up leverage and pressure against countries that he may well try and strike some sort of deal with in the future. ..."
"... Trump is difficult to fathom but has too much morgue to be a good leader. When compared to Putin or even Rouhani, he is far too impulsive. ..."
"... RT is reporting that US Congressional authorities have withdrawn RT Network accreditaton. RT correspondents have been directed to turn in their credentials to the Congressional authorities. This effectively blacklists RT reporters from covering Congress; without credentials, they can't attend hearings, press conferences, etc. ..."
"... Trump's persona is like an inversion layer in air or water. An inversion layer in air can create mirages, and in water, submarines can, or used to be able to hide under inversion layers. Pat Lang put in a comment at his blog, of a study of Trump that showed him change, or his public image change over the years, starting back in the eighties, as he developed the persona. He mentions Stallone in his book as somebody he respects as Stallone had the ability to deliver a product that a large percentage of Americans liked and wanted. I think the persona is somewhat based on Stallone's fictional characters. ..."
"... Maybe even worse, the US PTB seem to have ZERO faith/confidence/belief in the "rightness" and resilience of our own system (certainly with cause), which makes them twitchy (re unstable) as a whole. Like a loaded gun in a shaky hand pointed at humanity. ..."
"... To think there are so many people that watch TV for fake intrigue and ignore the real world machinations all around them.....sigh ..."
"... To be honest, with Americans I prefer the conservatives, red necks and all the other nutjobs over Clintonists because while some of the former are hypocrites, none of them are as sickeningly hypocritical as the Clintonists and their führer. ..."
"... Best analysis of USA policy since WW2. Monetary Imperialism by Michael Hudson If you think it is just about military weapons and bombings then you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason USA is initiating all those wars and coups. https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/29/monetary-imperialism/ ..."
"... US and most of the west is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what it is pretending to be. A good word for this is Orwellian. ..."
"... Truth has been sacrificed for Propaganda since Bernay showed in WWI that Americans are helpless against it. Some combination of Fear, Nationalism and a Calvinistic God is all you need to get support for War, as well as some way to control the MSM to stay online with the message ..."
"... It strikes me that Calvinism is not much different than Zionism and Islamism in terms of violence, intolerance and basically an unloving God so War Propaganda is just as effective in Israel and the Islamic world as in the West. ..."
"... I'm calling them the Worst Generation. Too early? Too late? Thanks b and all. Carthage must be rebuilt. ..."
"... i would think the land of the free and brave weren't such chicken shits when it came to info, but obviously i am wrong here and thus the chicken shit designation of the crumbling us empire... ..."
"... 1. US perfected propaganda to the extent Goebbels would be proud of them. Thousands of PhDs/psychologists craft fake news presentation and masses manipulation, and it works. Just ask most of the Westerners, who believe that Assad or Iranians are evil, that Russia is a threat to the Worlds Peace, etc. ..."
"... 2. If Russia doesn't respond, US thinks they got away without repercussions and escalate, and then escalate some more. They will do that anyway now, but at the same time harming their own interests. ..."
"... An anecdote I read one time. A Soviet journalist in the cold war era goes to the US for a while to work with US journalists. The actual story is a bit longer, but the ending is along these lines. The Soviet journalist says to the US journalists "It is very good. Americans believe your propaganda, whereas our people don't believe ours. ..."
"... Now the situation is reversed, where US propaganda is not believed, and all Russia has to do is print the facts or ensure US propaganda gets broadcast within Russia. Russia seems to be doing both and it is driving the US nuts. ..."
State Department Condemns* Designation Of Media As Foreign Agents (*only applies to Russia)
UPDATED below
---
Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. It remarked that "legislation that allows .. to
label media outlets as 'foreign agents' ... presents yet another threat to free media". It noted that "freedom of expression -- including
speech and media ... is a universal human rights obligation".
The remark came after the U.S. Department of Justice required the Russian outlet RT America to register as a 'foreign
agent' under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). RT registered as ordered on November 13.
But the State Department statement was NOT in response to the DOJ requirement against RT . The State Department reacted
to a new Russian law that was issued in response to the demand against RT . The new Russian law is a mirror
to the U.S. FARA law. It demands that foreign media which are active in Russia register as 'foreign agents'. The EU poodles followed
the State Department nonsense with an equally dumb statement.)
With its criticism of the Russian version of the FARA law while ignoring the U.S. FARA action against RT, the State Department
confirmed the allegations of hypocrisy RT and other media have raised against the U.S. government.
The whole issue started with the notable liar James Clapper under the Obama administration. He and other 'intelligence' people
found that RT was too truthful in its reporting to be allowed to inform the U.S. public. Publication of criticism of the
U.S. government based on verifiable facts is seen as an unfriendly act which must be punished.
Congress and the U.S. Justice Department under the Trump administration followed up on that. FARA is originally NOT directed against
foreign media. The Trump Justice Department circumvented the spirit of the law to apply it to RT .
The Russian government had warned several times that the application of FARA against RT would be followed up on with
a similar requirement against U.S. media in Russia. The Trump administration ignored those warnings. It now condemns the Russian
move.
"We could do with having a USIA on steroids to fight this information war [with Russia] a lot more aggressively than we're
doing right now," Director of National Intelligence James Clapper told members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.
... "[Russia Today] was very active in promoting a particular point of view, disparaging our system, our alleged hypocrisy about
human rights," he said. "Whatever crack, fissure they could find in our tapestry, they would exploit it," via the state-owned
news network.
Intelligence Report on Russian Hacking - Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Jan 6 2017 - Annex I, originally
published on 11 December 2012 by the Open Source Center
RT America TV , a Kremlin-financed channel operated from within the United States, has substantially expanded its repertoire of
programming that highlights criticism of alleged US shortcomings in democracy and civil liberties
... RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November. RT framed the movement as a fight against
"the ruling class" and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations.
... RT's reports often characterize the United States as a "surveillance state" and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties,
police brutality, and drone use.
... RT has also focused on criticism of the US economic system, US currency policy, alleged Wall Street greed, and the US national
debt.
... RT is a leading media voice opposing Western intervention in the Syrian conflict and blaming the West for waging "information
wars" against the Syrian Government.
U.S. Congressman David N. Cicilline (D-RI), who serves as co-chair of the Democratic Policy and Communications Committee (DPCC),
and U.S. Congressman Matthew Gaetz (R-FL) today introduced legislation to close a loophole in foreign agent registration requirements
that Russia Today exploited extensively during last year's presidential election.
RT said late Monday that the company that supplies all the services for its RT America channel was told by the DOJ in a letter
that it is obligated to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act , an act aimed at lobbyists and lawyers representing
foreign political interests.
...
FARA specifically exempts US and foreign news organizations, and the DOJ focus on the company that supplies services for RT
might be a way around that stipulation.
MOSCOW (Reuters) - Russia's parliament warned on Friday some U.S. and other foreign media could be declared "foreign agents" and
obliged to regularly declare full details of their funding, finances and staffing.
...
Russian lawmakers said the move was retaliation for a demand by the U.S. Department of Justice that Kremlin-backed TV station
RT register in the United States as a "foreign agent", something Moscow has said it regards as an unfriendly act.
MOSCOW/WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Kremlin-backed television station RT America registered Monday with the U.S. Department of Justice
as a "foreign agent" in the United States, the outlet's editor in chief said and the Department of Justice confirmed later in
the day.
MOSCOW – Russia's Justice Ministry has warned several U.S. government-funded news outlets they could be designated as foreign
agents under a new bill that has yet to be fully approved.
The bill , endorsed by Russia's lower house on Wednesday, comes in response to U.S. demands that Russian state-funded RT TV
register as a foreign agent. It needs to be approved by the upper house and signed by President Vladimir Putin to become law.
Russian President Vladimir Putin signed into law Saturday a new bill designating international media outlets as foreign agents
in retaliation for a similar measure taken by the U.S. Department of Justice against the state-funded RT television
BRUSSELS -- The European Union has criticized legislation signed by President Vladimir Putin that empowers Russia's government
to designate media outlets receiving funding from abroad as "foreign agents" and impose sanctions against them.
...
Maja Kocijancic, the spokesperson of the European Commission for Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, said in
a November 26 statement that the "legislation goes against Russia's human rights obligations and commitments."
New Russian legislation that allows the Ministry of Justice to label media outlets as "foreign agents" and to monitor or block
certain internet activity presents yet another threat to free media in Russia. Freedom of expression -- including speech and media
which a government may find inconvenient -- is a universal human rights obligation Russia has pledged to uphold.
With a few words less the statement by the State Department would have gained universality. It would have made perfect sense.
See here for a corrected version:
Unfortunately the State Department's spokesperson
added some verbose lamenting about one specific
country. It thereby exposed itself to the very criticism the U.S. government strives to suppress.
---
UPDATE - Nov 30 0:50am
As consequence of the FARA designation of RT 's U.S. production company RT is
now losing access to
the Congressional Gallery. Congress Gallery access is in turn required to get White House press credentials. RT is now likely
to lose those too.
Meanwhile a consultative Congress commission is
pressing to designate the Chinese news-agency XINHUA as 'foreign agent'. It also wants all staff of XINHUA
to register as such. That would make it nearly impossible for freelancer and others who work for multiple media to continue with
their XINHUA gigs.
Posted by b on November 29, 2017 at 01:27 PM |
Permalink
Yeah. Whatever. This is how Russia is supposed to respond. If the US does something, Russia is should respond immediately. Not
several months or a year down the road. Stop waiting for the spoiled brat to get it. They never will.
It is so embarrassing to live in a country where the government issues nothing but lies and hypocrisy. I realize that to the
players it's all a game and maybe funny but to this citizen and probably others this game is putting our lives in danger,,, and
we don't find that 'funny'.
thanks b... well, once again american hypocrisy is on public display... i guess someone is hoping that ignorance and a short memory
will rule the day..
Speaking of hypocrisy, on 20 Nov 2017, one day after the Arab League Confab--which now ought to become known as the Zionist-Arab
League -- Nasrallah gave a speech calling out all those nations that supported Daesh, particularly the Outlaw US Empire. Video
of the speech in French with English subs and a very partial transcript are here,
http://sayed7asan.blogspot.com/ with a longer partial transcript
available at The Saker's blog.
Excerpt:
"Of course, we will also need real festivities to celebrate the victory because it will be a great victory, a victory against
the organization representing the greatest danger (for all) that soiled more than anyone the religion of Muhammad b. Abdillah,
peace and blessings be upon him and his family, since 1,400 years. This will be the victory of humanistic and moral values against
horrific bestiality, cruelty and violence. A victory that will have a huge impact on the cultural, religious, humanitarian, military,
security, political levels, as well as on the very image (of Islam and Muslims) and at all levels.
"And at that moment, we will have to repeat that the Iraqi people, the Syrian people, the Lebanese people, all the elites
and all the leaders and peoples of the region should reflect, weigh and return to the question of the identity of the creators,
supporters, advocates and promoters of ISIS, that enabled them to commit these terrorist massacres [US, UK, France, Saudi Arabia,
Turkey, Qatar ], and the identity of those who have stood against ISIS, fought them, offered martyrs in this fight [Iran, Syria,
Irak, Hezbollah, Russia] and inflicted a defeat on ISIS and all those who stand behind them. This is a discussion to be held with
depth and strength so that the (Muslim) believers do not become victims twice of the same ills."
Once again, how much longer will people deny that what was formerly know as US government has turned into a Fascist regime - with
the dictating done by Plutocrats whose names are not even known, in spite of everybody being surveilled. Just not the owners of
the Nazi Sicherheits Agentur.
After I have been writing about the fact that the Western hemisphere as a whole is no longer democratic and that the CIA
and the NSA dictate the policies of the US regime and its vassals, my cell phone started to turn itself off and on frequently
and now my Mac is turning itself on in the middle of the night and the hard drive indicator lights turn red - what they have never
done before. Every option to "wake up on call" is disabled. For WiFi (turned off - no Wifi here) and Bluetooth. The Mac is only
connected to the power outlet.
Please let me know if anybody else has the same experience with their hardware. Also, I can no longer send emails on all accounts,
but I do receive junk.
------
The so called 'State Department' that has already a disturbing history of cooperation with Fascists throughout its existence,
is now totally unhinged. It's actions make it clear beyond any doubt that the US is no longer and has likely not been since 2000
(or 1964, depending on view point) what goes for a 'democratic republic'.
The paymasters don't even bother any longer that the public is waking up based on their Fascist activities and actions. They
don't give the proverbial F about people finding out and understanding what is actually happening in the Nazi High Five regimes.
What are people going to do? Demonstrate against Fascism? Concerting a total consumer boycott - the antonym of 'go shopping'?
Writing letters to misrepresentatives?
It certainly looks like the shit has piled up behind the fan like never before and the so called "happy holidays" seem to be
the perfect time to flip the switch to "ON".
Sad, that through the incessant propaganda and Nationalism force fed to the lesser mentally gifted part of the population for
centuries now, the people are no longer capable to do what the Declaration of Independence provides them to do (theoretically):
That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish
it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The authors of these 'goddamn pieces of papers' must have already used Orwellian lingo, since it appears that this paragraph
only refers to regime change in other Nations, just not in the US.
Illegal wars and toppling of democratically elected socialist governments for the Safety and Happiness of the American
people? That must be it.
Maybe one can call in at the regime department and tell them about psychological projection? The number is 1-800-FUC-KYOU.
Yes, it's almost the same number Obama had chosen for criticism of the ACA - 1-800-381-2596. That is what these parasites think
about "the people".
Now what? Following the advice of some people to not only see the negative shit on Earth? Sure, the genocide on the Palestinians
and the Yemenis (plus countless other 'obstacles') is actually a good thing, correct? Because those who are exterminated now,
won't have to experience worse down the line.
Apologies for the sarcasm, but this is getting out of public hands faster than the Ludicrous Speed of the "We Brake
For Nobody"-Imperial Starship.
Trump's as naked as the ape he actually is. Weird way to go about cultivating better relations with Russia. As with Obama previously,
much of what Trump campaigned on is being reversed, the opposite of his orated intent being implemented instead. A commentator
at Sputnik was shocked that I lumped Trump together with the criminals Clinton and Obama, wanting an explanation why I did so.
Obviously, that person isn't paying attention, and I told him so.
Even supposedly impartial international organizations continue to abet the Outlaw US Empire's Big Lies: "A press freedom watchdog,
Reporters Without Borders, has asked the Swiss Press Club to cancel a panel discussion on the 'true agenda' of the controversial
White Helmets group. But the club's director won't budge, noting that such demands are typically made by oppressive regimes."
Kudos for foreign agent RT for providing the report,
https://www.rt.com/news/411116-reporters-white-helmets-censorship/
Activist Post tells us that the presentation's by Vanessa Beeley, with Bradon Turbeville adding this observation: "Rather than
attend the event to ask questions and present its side of the argument, RWB responded with insults and hid away under the guise
of boycotting the panel. Pouting in the corner and refusing to take part in the discussion, however, did not stop the discussion
from taking place." Lots of additional info and many links here,
https://www.activistpost.com/2017/11/despite-western-funded-ngos-boycott-vanessa-beeley-exposes-white-helmets-at-swiss-press-club.html
Behind the persona, Trump may be far smarter than Obama or Clinton, and perhaps more dangerous as far as keeping the US
empire alive, depending on which way he goes. I am starting think he won't create any new wars though, just let the neo-con establishment
do their thing within a limit, to build up leverage and pressure against countries that he may well try and strike some sort of
deal with in the future.
I don't give a damn what the Federal government wants me to see or hear, but obviously this is being done for the "benefit" of
the majority of the public who will not look very far to get "informed" about current/world events. I don't see any end to this
fascist process here in the "land of the free"; how long before they just shut down the net or limit it to approved websites?
Beyond the personae and the relative intelligence of Clinton vs Obama vs Trump, one must admit that times are different. Both
China and Russia are on the rise. China is now a formidable rival in economic terms and is rising militarily. And fast. Russia
is recuperating from Gorbachev's treason and getting stronger by the day and is nowa World player to be reckoned with.
There is one thing that must be solved and that is the money exchange system through which gates most countries must pass to
obtain their dues. China and Russia are working on it. Once this is complete, US sanctions will work no more. Even new internets
are being created that will bypass the US controlled one.
There is not much anybody can do against the realignment of the globe. The Unipolar model is gone because the US could not
manage it. Greed, U.S. greed, and exceptionalism killed it.
North Korea just proves that the US power and influence have limits. I presume, I may be wrong, that once KJU has a good enough
number of warheads and rockets, he will want the US to vacate South Korea. Both the Russians and Chinese will love that. He will
want sanctions lifted and see normal relations resume between NOKO and China and Russia.
There is no point for him to rock the boat if he does not pursue greater aims.
Trump is difficult to fathom but has too much morgue to be a good leader. When compared to Putin or even Rouhani, he is
far too impulsive. But I guess deep down we would like the outcome to be better than the circumstances would lead us
to expect. The US will remain a Zionist puppet for as long as Israel exists. If it is down to Israel's will, America will pass,
but Zion will prevail. Jared is now the transmission belt in the Saudi, Israel, US triad. Which means that Israel has a personal
ambassador to Trump. Because of the internal opposition to Trump, he must look for an external happening that will remove him
from public scrutiny. He wont tackle Kim but he might believe Iran is gamer as he has allies in the endeavor.
Nobody will win this war but Israel may lose more than expected.
Another line just got crossed. I dislike the phrase "breaking news"-- it's a fraternal twin to "breaking wind"-- butRT is reporting that US Congressional authorities have withdrawn RT Network accreditaton. RT correspondents have
been directed to turn in their credentials to the Congressional authorities. This effectively blacklists RT reporters from covering
Congress; without credentials, they can't attend hearings, press conferences, etc.
Sorry to not provide a link, but this
is so recent it isn't even on YouTube yet. It will be interesting to see whether the Western civil-liberties and "media-watchdog"
organizations, including the ACLU, react to this draconian development, much less vociferously protest it. In any case, I doubt
if we'll see the rest of the Congressional press corps stage a walkout in sympathy and solidarity with their silenced and censored
RT colleagues.
Agree on China Russia ect, though I am starting to believe Trump is not impulsive, rather, he runs very well thought out stratagies.
The impulsiveness is part of the persona. I run onto an analysis of how Trump opertes the persona within a narrow band, and he
uses it to gain attention and then direct attention to where he wants it.
I think this video is worth watching - the first half deals mainly with Trump's persona.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWA5pOmSDgQ
Trump's persona is like an inversion layer in air or water. An inversion layer in air can create mirages, and in water,
submarines can, or used to be able to hide under inversion layers. Pat Lang put in a comment at his blog, of a study of Trump
that showed him change, or his public image change over the years, starting back in the eighties, as he developed the persona.
He mentions Stallone in his book as somebody he respects as Stallone had the ability to deliver a product that a large percentage
of Americans liked and wanted. I think the persona is somewhat based on Stallone's fictional characters.
Perimetr: Censoring the Internet is what the Net Neutrality debate is all about. If they repeal Net Neutrality, we can expect
sites like Moon of Alabama to just spool and spool but never load, whereas CNN and Fox will load immediately.
RE SlapHappy. That makes sense. I already see that happening with RT on my iPhone. So now we will need Radio Free Russia
to be set up in where, Mexico?
There is not much new in the heavy-handed methods employed by the Empire - they have always employed intimidation, false flags,
fake news, bribery and corruption, even assassination -but up till now went to some pains to cloak their actions in a mantle of
morality. They usually attempted to swing public opinion behind their endeavours. What is frightening lately, is their brashness
and total disregard for the public's opinion. Because they know that short of armed revolt, they have little to fear. The presstitute
media shall whitewash their hypocrisy and all their crimes, and at election time they will once more own all the candidates.
Happening on google/youtube excessively. Stuff like the Jimmy Dore show, or any other critical outlet does not load, or takes
forever respectively. Doggie videos and those showing stupid people doing stupid stuff - load instantly. It will be interesting
to see, whence net neutrality is neutered, how the owners of the country will deal with the backlash of billions in lost revenue
from online commerce.
Because people that can't get what they want when they don't shop, are unlikely to shop online any longer. The stench of censorship
will keep those online consumers away - if not alone for endless loading times due to not being able to pay $ 800 per month for
high speed internet.
First time US legalized targeting of media as "terrorists" thanks to neocon John Bolton and his zionist cohorts. Being labeled
foreign agent is getting off easy http://la.indymedia.org/news/2006/07/168921.html
Are shortwave radios going to make a comeback? RT World Service?
It's tough to make out what the US endgame is in all this. It's probably even tougher to make out if the PTB in the US know
what the endgame is. Open-ended, freestyle, ante-upping (by the US) devolution of any and all rational forms of coexistence, imo,
with zero good outcomes.
Maybe even worse, the US PTB seem to have ZERO faith/confidence/belief in the "rightness" and resilience of our own system
(certainly with cause), which makes them twitchy (re unstable) as a whole. Like a loaded gun in a shaky hand pointed at humanity.
Today the U.S. State Department hit the ball of hypocrisy out of the park. After the park come
the state/region/nation/world/universe. See how far yet they have to expand their hypocrisy.....why they are just getting warmed
up......is China news next? To think there are so many people that watch TV for fake intrigue and ignore the real world machinations
all around them.....sigh
Would be interesting to read the transcript of the next State Department Press Briefing, which the State spokesmodel must be dreading
- talk about being handed an impossible brief......
Those briefings normally start with Matt Lee from Associated Press asking the first question, but I suspect that this time
he'll start by turning to the RT reporter who is sitting in the back of the room and saying something along the lines of "No,
please, you go first.....".
While people are distracted by what is happening between Washington and Moscow, an election is being stolen and Clintonists
will do nothing about it because Clinton and Obama made the thief, Juan Orlando Hernández, president of Honduras.
Back in 2009:
a cadre of military officers, businessmen, and right-wing politicians, including Hernández, overthrew the leftist President
Manuel Zelaya
with encouragement and assistance from Hillary Clinton and the State Department.
Contrary to what the New Yorker goes on to say " after he vowed to run for re-election" Zelaya tried to organise a referendum
to change the constitution to allow him to run a second time which many Clintonists attacked as being anti-democratic. Juan Orlando
Hernández then packed the Supreme Court with his own supporters and had the constitution changed without a word of complaint from
the State Department under Obama or any of the Clintonists who'd accused Zelaya of being anti-democratic.
Over the next few days I expect to see those same Clintonists accusing Trump of being anti-democratic for failing to object
to Juan Orlando Hernández stealing the election but ignoring or excusing the responsibility Hillary Clinton has for what has happened
just like they claim that Hillary Clinton has no responsibility for restoring slavery to Libya.
To be honest, with Americans I prefer the conservatives, red necks and all the other nutjobs over Clintonists because while
some of the former are hypocrites, none of them are as sickeningly hypocritical as the Clintonists and their führer.
Best analysis of USA policy since WW2. Monetary Imperialism by Michael Hudson If you think it is just about military weapons
and bombings then you are seeing only the tip of the iceberg. There is a reason USA is initiating all those wars and coups.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/11/29/monetary-imperialism/
US and most of the west is a perpetual caricature of itself; at every moment it is the mockery and the contradiction of what
it is pretending to be. A good word for this is Orwellian.
Truth has been sacrificed for Propaganda since Bernay showed in WWI that Americans are helpless against it. Some combination
of Fear, Nationalism and a Calvinistic God is all you need to get support for War, as well as some way to control the MSM to stay
online with the message
It strikes me that Calvinism is not much different than Zionism and Islamism in terms of violence, intolerance and basically
an unloving God so War Propaganda is just as effective in Israel and the Islamic world as in the West.
failure of imagination | Nov 29, 2017 11:03:32 PM |
42
Full Spectrum Quicksand. Grasping for national interests and not looking too confident. When I watch it on TV at other's places
( I just don't get TV...) I noticed it next to PornPerPay in the guide for a reason , tho not a fair one. They've had a CFR member
on staff, so my Mockingbird tinfoil strainer gets going finer. I don't hear them being accused of wrong stories so, it's sour
gripes. The couple of times RT came into a conversation was about Redacted Tonite.
I'm calling them the Worst Generation.
Too early? Too late? Thanks b and all. Carthage must be rebuilt.
@41 forest.. thanks.. if that is what toivo thinks, then all i got to say to that is fascinating! i see it exactly the opposite..
it is the usa that is constantly lying... i would think the land of the free and brave weren't such chicken shits when it
came to info, but obviously i am wrong here and thus the chicken shit designation of the crumbling us empire...
@all - I updated the post with RT's
loss of Congress Gallery
credentials because it has now been put under FARA. Following from that RT will also lose White House credentials. Additionally
a congress commission now
wants to put The Chinese Xinhua agency under FARA and also all individually staff that works for Xinhua.
Interesting times of the media war. US removed RT credentials to access Congress, I'm sure they will follow up with banning RT
from the White House too. Russia will probably ban US media from Kremlin and other institutions in the mirror law. Whats
next? US ban on Russian-linked media from US networks/satellites like they did with Iran? Will they dare to apply similar treatment
to China? Interesting times indeed.
@ ToivoS | 34
why ban US propagated bullshit
Two reasons:
1. US perfected propaganda to the extent Goebbels would be proud of them. Thousands of PhDs/psychologists craft fake news
presentation and masses manipulation, and it works. Just ask most of the Westerners, who believe that Assad or Iranians are evil,
that Russia is a threat to the Worlds Peace, etc.
2. If Russia doesn't respond, US thinks they got away without repercussions and escalate, and then escalate some more.
They will do that anyway now, but at the same time harming their own interests. How they will affect Russia's presidential
elections, etc. if they are as confined as RT, but are losing even more because they have many more channels? They shot one
bullet at Russia and got a ricochet of 10 bullets :)
An anecdote I read one time. A Soviet journalist in the cold war era goes to the US for a while to work with US journalists.
The actual story is a bit longer, but the ending is along these lines. The Soviet journalist says to the US journalists "It is
very good. Americans believe your propaganda, whereas our people don't believe ours.
Now the situation is reversed, where US propaganda is not believed, and all Russia has to do is print the facts or ensure
US propaganda gets broadcast within Russia. Russia seems to be doing both and it is driving the US nuts.
WaPo Reporter Caught On Hidden Camera Being A Bit Too Honest; Admits "No Evidence" Of
Trump-Russia CollusionTyler Durden Nov 29, 2017 9:00 PM 0 SHARES
CNN and
New York Times , Project Veritas has now set their sights on the Washington Post. In a
candid conversation with an undercover Project Veritas journalist, the Post's National Security
Director, Adam Entous, put himself in danger of being a bit too honest, at least by his
employer's standards, by admitting that "there's no evidence of [Trump-Russia collusion] that
I've seen so far." Entous goes on to admit that "it's a fucking crap shoot" and that he has no
idea how Mueller's investigation might turn out.
Entous : "Our reporting has not taken us to a plcae where I would be able to say with any
confidence that the result of it is going to be the president being guilty of being in cahoots
with the Russians. There's no evidence of that that I've seen so far."
PV Journalist : "There has to be something, right?"
Entous "Maybe, maybe not. It could just be lower-level people being manipulated or
manipulating, but it's very hard to, it's really...It's a fucking black box."
"We've seen a lot of flirtation, if you will, between them but nothing that, in my opinion,
would rank as actual collusion. Now that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, it just means we
haven't found it yet. Or maybe it doesn't exist."
"I mean it's a fucking crap shoot. I literally have no prediction whatsoever as to what
would happen, and I do all the stuff for the Post on this so..."
Today we show you our second undercover video within @washingtonpost this time exposing
Nat'l Security Director Adam Entous who ADMITS that the Russia story is a "f*cking crap shoot"
and "maybe it doesn't exist at all." pic.twitter.com/qeEfk9oCKA
Of course, on the surface, Entous' opinions are not that explosive and likely mimic the
views held by many Americans...namely that despite 1.5 years of investigations no one has
presented any actual, tangible evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.
That said , what is explosive about this particular undercover sting is just how different
Entous' private views on the Trump-Russia investigation are from the constant stream of
narrative-building collusion headlines that flood the Washington Post's homepage each and every
day.
Like this one...
Or this one if you prefer...
Of course, rather than focus on the blatant media bias that has once again been exposed by
Project Veritas, the mainstream media rushed to the defense of the Washington Post by focusing
instead on the foiled attempt of one of O'Keefe's journalists to plant a fake story at WaPo to
see if they would simply run it with no questions asked or actually do their jobs. Apparently
CNN thought the foiled plot had put O'Keefe "on the defensive"...
...but O'Keefe seemed to not be all that defensive in his response below...which presumably
means we'll all be treated to many more undercover stings in the years to come.
MSM want to destroy @Project_Veritas . They see us as
their enemy. When we expose them, they are lose their power. We have a stone lodged between
Goliath's eyes. They want me to kneel down & apologize. I will not. We will keep pushing,
we will expose the truth. - @JamesOKeefeIIIpic.twitter.com/vbBVxXtBD6
Apparently his WaPo thing didn't really work, but they can't all be winners. His exposing
of those DNC operatives during the campaign was brilliant. To this day I do not understand
why they were allowed to just get fired or resign from all their postings without an
indictment.
The USA has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more
than a decade. How can free societies protect themselves?"
Billionaires, both liberal and conservative ones, own, and their corporations advertise in
and their 'charities' donate to, America's mainstream (and also many 'alternative news')
media.
They do this not so as to profit directly from the national 'news'media (a money-losing
business, in itself), but so as to control the 'news' that the voting public (right and left)
are exposed to and thus will accept as being "mainstream" and will reject all else as being
"fringe" or even 'fake news', even if what's actually fake is, in fact, the billionaires' own
mainstream 'news', such as their 'news'media had most famously 'reported' about 'Saddam's WMD'
(but the'news'media never changed after that scandal -- even after having pumped uncritically
that blatant lie to the public).
Have America's numerous foreign coups and outright military invasions (including Iraq 2003)
been the result of fake-news that was published by the mainstream 'news'media, or only by some
of the 'alternative news' sites that mirror what the mainstream ones have been 'reporting'
(passing along the Government's lies just like the mainstream ones do)? Obviously, the
catastrophic fake news -- the fake news that 'justified' America's invading and destroying
Iraq, Libya, and many other countries -- was all published in the mainstream 'news'media.
That's where to go for the really dangerous lies: it's the mainstream 'news'media. If those
media, and their Government (whose lies they stenographically report to the public) will now
censor the Internet, such as is increasingly happening not only in the US but in its allies
including the
European Union , then the only 'information' that the public will have access to, at all,
will be the billionaires' lies. Have we already almost reached 1984 , finally, in 2017?
Two typical examples of this coordinated mass-deception-operation happened to be showing at
the top of the magazine-pile at an office recently and struck my attention there, because of
the ordinariness of the propaganda that was being pumped.
One of them was the cover of TIME magazine, dated "July 24, 2017" and with the cover
headlined "RED HANDED: The Russia
Scandal Hits Home" , overprinting onto the face of Donald Trump Jr., as their
menacing-looking cover-image. That cover-story, as published inside, was titled "How Donald Trump
Jr.'s Emails Have Cranked Up the Heat on His Family" , and it used such phrases as
"potentially treasonous" and "Russia is the one country that could physically destroy America"
(as if it weren't also the case that US is the one country that could physically destroy
Russia, and very much the case also that possession of the weaponry isn't any indication of
being evil, such as this particular propagandist was implicitly assuming). Hillary Clinton's
V.P. running-mate was reported to be "saying that these fresh revelations move the Russia
investigation into the realms of 'perjury, false statements and even, potentially,
treason.'"
These mere speculations, with slimy inferences of evil, with no real facts that back them
up, were the front-cover 'news', in TIME. The facts were thin, but the speculations were thick,
and the only thing really clear from it was that almost all of America's billionaires and
centi-millionaires want Trump ousted, and want Vice President Mike Pence to become America's
President as soon as possible -- before Trump's term is up. Democratic ones certainly do, and
many of the Republican ones apparently do as well. Perhaps Trump isn't hostile enough toward
Russia to suit their fancy. At least Pence would be predictable -- predictably horrible, in
precisely the way that the controllers of the 'news'media overwhelmingly desire.
The other example was the cover of The New Republic magazine, dated "December 2017" and it
simply headlined in its center, "HOW TO
ATTACK A DEMOCRACY ", and the opening page of the article inside was bannered "WEAKEN FROM
WITHIN" and below that in the printed edition (the December physical issue of the magazine)
was:
"Russian manipulation of American social media in the 2016 presidential election took the
United States by surprise. But Moscow has been honing an information-age art of war -- through
fake news, disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can these
societies protect themselves?"
The online version of that article (which was dated 2 November 2017) opened almost the
same: "Moscow has been honing an information age art of war -- through fake news,
disinformation, leaks, and trolling -- for more than a decade. How can free societies protect
themselves?"
The unspoken assumption in this article is that the US CIA hasn't been doing the same thing
-- and doing it even
worse than the old (and thankfully expired) KGB ever did. (And the CIA, even after the end
of communism as its supposed enemy until 1991, still does far worse to other
countries than Russia's FSB does or ever did.)
Underlying both the TIME article and the TNR article are unstated speculations about the
American situation, which are based upon thin facts such as that "at least $100,000 in ads purchased through 470 phony Facebook pages
and accounts" were "using Facebook to
incite anti-black hatred and anti-Muslim prejudice and fear while provoking extremism" ,
and that supposedly somehow (they never say how) such puny expenses threw the
multi-billion-dollar 2017 US Presidential election to Trump. How is a case such as that, to be
viewed by an intelligent reader as constituting anything but propaganda for the weapons-making
firms such as Lockheed Martin, who benefit from such international anti-Russia hate-spewing to
NATO countries, which are those firms' major markets (other than Saudi Arabia, and the other
fundamentalist-Sunni kingdoms that together constitute the Gulf Cooperation Council or "GCC"
nations, which hate Shiite Iran as much as the US regime hates Russia)?
Also among the underlying and unstated speculations in the background here is the older
mass-media allegation about Russia's allegedly having spied and swayed the US election by
'hacking' it, which is likewise being pumped by Democrats and other opponents of Mr. Trump,
alleging that 'Russia hacked the election' .
And, so, for an example of the flimsiness of those allegations, one of the two main
'authorities' who are the source of that, the Bush and Obama Administration's James Clapper,
was headlined at Politico on 7 July 2017, "Clapper: No
evidence others besides Russia hacked US election" . Mr. Clapper happens to be a
military-industrial-complex revolving-door 'intelligence' 'professional' whom, on 10 February
2011, even Politico was
reporting to be "backing away from comments he made Thursday calling Egypt's branch of the
Muslim Brotherhood movement 'largely secular'," and who had also covered-up George W.
Bush's lies about 'WMD in Iraq' so as to protect the liars. On 29 October 2003, the New
York Times stenographically passed along his deception about the non-existent WMD by
headlining, "WEAPONS SEARCH; Iraqis Removed
Arms Material, US Aide Says" and reported, "The official, James R. Clapper Jr., a retired
lieutenant general, said satellite imagery showing a heavy flow of traffic from Iraq into
Syria, just before the American invasion in March, led him to believe that illicit weapons
material 'unquestionably' had been moved out of Iraq." No evidence ever existed that Saddam
Hussein still had any WMD after the U.N. monitors (UNSCOM) destroyed the last of them in 1998;
but Clapper 'unquestionably' 'knew' to the contrary -- though no evidence was ever made
available to the contrary of UNSCOM's reports, and lots of evidence existed that Bush simply
lied about the entire matter .
Both of the official 'experts' who are promoting the Russiagate charges, are longtime, and
repeatedly, exposed liars - but that's the best they can do, always assuming that the public
don't know that these people are propagandists for the military-industrial complex , not real
'public servants' at all.
The fake-news masters are certainly the mainstream 'news'media themselves - and they, and
the billionaires and centi-millionaires who own and control them, are the real megaphones by
which the US dictatorship constantly fools the American people (and the publics in its allied
nations), to keep in line, for the aristocracy .
if russia hacked the election why didn't the dnc ask, beg the fbi to examine the dnc email
servers and prove it in detail? instead the dnc put forward the highly questionable
crowdstrike and guccifer 2.0 materials.
why hasn't evidence from the vaunted national security agency, as shown by snowden to
record everything, been presented to demonstrate russian hacking?
how can the fbi still maintain it never investigated the seth rich murder? even if seymour
hersh is right and it wasn't connected to rich's very probable theft of dnc email data and
its transmission to wikileaks, it certainly could have been and merited checking out. either
the fbi is lying or incompetent (or both).
i sent a request to judicial watch (potentially explosive materials about the clinton
lynch "tarmac" meeting to be released today) asking them to file freedom of information suits
on the first and third paragraphs above. we must break out of the horrible zionist takeover
of the u.s. that is explained in detail in chris bollyn's new book and video, the war on
terror; the plot to rule the middle east . it is also the plot to rule the u.s.a.
The people who worked in int'l finance in the 90s (representing countries to the WB and IMF) knew about the criminal callousness
of these institutions when pushing 'austerity' or 'reform' policies. Local elites sometimes were complacent and profited (those
privatizations! those newly opened markets!), sometimes resisted, but the US and the multilateral system –financial or otherwise–
are ruthless and very hard to resist.
Many countries suffered, not because they were Russian or Brazilian or Mexican, but because the opportunity for gain was there.
There's some common ground between the reds and whites in that the reds tapped into nationalist sentiments, hence the wars of
national liberation around the world being supported by the communists: Korea, Vietnam, insurgencies in Latin America, Africa,
etc. The script has flipped with the western countries now being the 'godless' ones who are trying to destroy religion, the family
and traditional ways of life. The 1% were horrified that there was an ideology out there that advocated taking their loot away
so they used all their resources in combatting it, even being willing to take the world to the brink of nuclear Armageddon in
doing so. They'd take the world down with them rather than lose their positions of power and money. Now that the ideology is no
longer there it's just back to the business of robbing everyone weaker than them. All the hysteria about Putin is simply that
he's built up the Russian state to where they can resist and that he's not a fellow slaveholder like them.
The intervention in Syria has unhinged parts of the west where they thought they could rob and kill anywhere they pleased but
now have been successfully resisted. Political systems come and go but the people have endured for the past thousand years, something
the fat cats of the west are trying to destroy to enlarge their slave plantation.
" Russia has greater economic disparity than any other major global power. In 2016, Credit Suisse's Global Wealth Report found
that the wealthiest 10% of people in Russia controlled 89% of the country's wealth ..
"The World Wealth and Inequality project's latest white-paper, co-authored by Thomas "Capital in the 21st Century" Piketty,
painstaking pieces together fragmentary data-sources to build up a detailed picture of wealth inequality in Russia in the pre-revolutionary
period; during phases of the Soviet era; on the eve of the collapse of the USSR; and ever since.
The headline findings: official Russian estimates drastically understate national inequality; Russia is as unequal as the USA
or even moreso; Russian inequality is more intense than the inequality in other post-Soviet states and in post-Deng China.
This paper combines national accounts, survey, wealth and fiscal data (including recently released tax data on high-income
taxpayers) in order to provide consistent series on the accumulation and distribution of income and wealth in Russia from the
Soviet period until the present day. We find that official survey-based measures vastly under-estimate the rise of inequality
since 1990. According to our benchmark estimates, top income shares are now similar to (or higher than) the levels observed
in the United States. We also find that inequality has increased substantially more in Russia than in China and other ex-communist
countries in Eastern Europe. We relate this finding to the specific transition strategy followed in Russia. According to our benchmark
estimates, the wealth held offshore by rich Russians is about three times larger than official net foreign reserves, and is comparable
in magnitude to total household financial assets held in Russia.
From Soviets to Oligarchs: Inequality and Property in Russia 1905-2016 [Filip Novokmet, Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman/World
Wealth and Income Database]"
People used to stage revolutions in order to bring communism to their countries. Plenty of examples for that: Russia, China,
Cuba and many others. Of course, those people were deluded, right? Who would want to bring a system that preaches economic equality?
It must be someone who is out of their mind. Has there ever been a capitalist revolution where someone took up arms trying to
bring capitalism to their country? Must be because it's such a humane and desirable system. Also, a lot of people think that Islam
is a backward religion. Really? Then how come it tolerates socialism (communism), better than Christianity ever did? Libya, Iraq,
Syria, Afghanistan they were all socialist at some point. That's why the greatest democracy set their sights on them to destroy
them. Because, you see, by their calculations, no matter how extremist and backward the Islam gets, it's still more progressive
than socialism or communism. Helluva math there. The game has always been about preserving capitalism, and not the most benign
version either. Which is too bad, because capitalism has been known to tolerate dictatorship, fascism, Nazism, slavery – pretty
much the ugliest forms of government the sick human mind can come up with, but it can't tolerate little bit of socialism. Because
you see, socialism is worse than any of those lovely political systems. Democracy (capitalism) is too pure for that, such a fragile
and delicate thing that it is.
I am surprised Sweden hasn't been bombed yet, for their flirting with socialism, but the way the things are going over there,
they don't have to be bombed. They did themselves in by following someone's stupid ideas about multiculturalism – which of course
is also a form of socialism – racial one, instead the real deal – the economic socialism that the greatest democracy of them all
is so afraid of.
When the Serbians in different parts of Yugoslavia started being attacked by the West, I was constantly pointing out that in recent
times, since WW1, an attack on Serbia has been a kind of introduction to an attack on Russia. In other words, I had no doubt that
Russia was next.
But, there is one huge difference between Serbia and Russia. Whilst the Serbians killed very few of those Western Zionist military
mercenaries who were killing Serbians directly or using their Croat, Muslim and Albanian proxies, if attacked the Russian military
could kill hundreds of thousands of the Western mercenaries. This is why whilst the war on Serbia was real and bloody only on
Serbians and the Bosnian Muslim proxies, the war on Russia would be totally disastrous for the Anglozionist Empire. This is the
only reason a shooting war on Russia has not started already.
For my money, Saker emphasises the supposed friendliness of the Western people towards Russia too much. It is not the Western
people who want to attack Russia then the Western Anglozionist elite, but the Western people really do not care, as long as it
is not the blood of their progeny and their own money paying for bringing Russia to heel.
And if Russia is destroyed, just like Ukraine, then there could be some lucrative jobs when the Western Zio-elite starts
dismembering the Russian corpse. And well paying jobs are in great demand in the bankrupt West. The unwritten contract that the
Western people have with their Anglozionist elite says: find a way to destroy Russia without a global nuclear war, cheaply, without
serious dying on our side and throw us a few bones and we will gladly hybernate our moral conscience.
Well, what evidence have you for asserting that Putin is a thug? You saw through the media's false reporting earlier as you
admit, so how come you again swallow the load of marbles that they dish out?
And while Putin may or may not be feared by "near abroad" he certainly is feared by those who seek total dominance of the planet.
The thing is, he is not an easy pushover and that is what is behind the thug claims. Many thinking people admire his intellect,
statesmanship, and skill in dealing with major problems of our times. The media also hates him because he shows up the western
leaders for the clowns that they are.
A principled US Government would have dealt very differently with Russia and Putin. There is no inherent conflict of interest
with Russia once global dominance is discarded as the main policy objective.
{The only people that fear Putin is the near abroad, .}
Sure, if you say so, Bub.
Texas* is, of course, 'near aboard' .
[Russia has begun testing of its new intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM), the RS-28 Sarmat. Sarmat can carry a payload
of up to ten tons of nukes. The missile system is set to enter service in 2018.
The RS-28 Sarmat is the first entirely new Russian ICBM in decades. The heavyweight missile weighs 100 tons and can boost 10 tons.
Russia claims the Sarmat can lift 10 heavyweight warheads, or 16 lighter ones, and Russian state media has described it as being
able to wipe out an area the size of Texas or France.]
_______________________
*
[Russia's New ICBM Could "Wipe Out Texas"]
Wow, this is the most refreshing and clear minded comment I've seen here in a while. Nice job WorkingClass, you've managed
to keep your mind clear and not buy into the BS. You've given me some hope Thank you.
The supposed leaders of the West are busy trying to replace or at the very least water down their own populations with a totally
different set of people from far away. Obviously these supposedly democratic leaders loathe what are supposed to be their own
people but rather see all those below them as just so many replaceable units of labor, the mark of a "slaveholder". Putin has
helped his people immensely. Life expectancies had plummeted into the 50′s and that's now been improved greatly as well as living
standards. He's popular because he's done much for the people he identifies with, unlike Western leaders who hold their noses
when anywhere near the citizenry. If the Russians like him then they must not be as worried about some issues as critics outside
the country appear to be.
It is hard to find people in the West who "hate the Russian people themselves"; but in place of hatred there is definitely
fear – fear of Russia's military strength.
Disagree. The enormous propagandistic effort to demonize Russia in the West, not only reveals fear. It also reveals hate, at
least on most of the elites. Most people are indifferent toward Russia but elites definitively have fear to the bear. You can
test some people by simply naming "Russia" and you will see on their eyes a quite irrationala mix of hate and fear. I think this
is result of an Orwellian propaganda effort aimed at injecting fear to "Eurasia".
This fear is exaggerated by the US military-industrial complex for its own purposes;
Given any two races or culture , what they are and what I think of them hardly matters. However pitted against each other it
will cultivate and create good conditions for the scum of both of them and embroil the rest in the conflict. It is an against
of chaos for a hostile order.
Right. Those were capitalist revolutions. You are bang on. Capitalism is one of the most tolerant systems of all kinds of extremism,
as I already mentioned. Capitalism has been known to tolerate monarchy, fascism, Nazism, various forms of dictatorships, slavery,
pretty much everything. But they draw the line at tolerating socialism, like it's the worst extremism they have ever tolerated.
My point is, capitalism is pretty robust system, it's not some delicate beauty that will fall apart if it comes in touch with
socialism. Democracy is only a window dressing, it has never been about democracy, it has always been about capitalism.
There's nothing easier nowadays than becoming a Kremlin (or any other kind of) Troll. Just start talking about things as they
are and you're half way through. Keep talking that way a bit longer, and you'll forever become another precious source of income
for the army of no-talent crooks with unlimited rights and zero oversee from those for whom they officially work. These guys are
simply used to build their entire careers and financial well-beings by adjusting reality to their needs. They've been doing it
for decades. Why not, as long as the true bosses are happy ? Why not, when the MSM will make population to swallow anything, no
matter how idiotic and illogical it is ?
This year old article written at the beginning of anti-Russian witch hunt makes it easier to understand the tribe of "national security
parasites" to which Ferguson firmly belongs. Like many other members of the national security parasites tribe, he made a brilliant career
pandering to right-wing think tanks.
The very simple message of this tribe is "Carnage should be destroyed" and argumentation is selectively produced to support this
very idea. This is a dangerous level of political paranoia, or imperial sense of inferiority, if you wish. He is so incoherent and selective
in his rendering of Russian history that he looks like a charlatan, not historian.
Note that the term "neoliberalism" and "US neoliberal empire" are not even mentioned by this "historian". The tribe prohibits using
those terms.
Also not mentioned was an attempt by Clinton administration to subjugate Russia and convert it into vassal state which was instrumental
in bringing Putin to power.
As for Ukraine he conveniently forgot the role of Victoria Nuland in Maydan events (aka Nulandgate). The idea to break China-Russia
cooperation by dangling different carrots at both, the carrots the move then apart, is the replay of British strategy to prevent any
possible alliance between Germany and and Russia. Nothing new here. It is a standard imperial policy to destroy any alliance that threaten
the empire global domination.
Notable quotes:
"... Nevertheless, it is important to remember what exactly Putin said on that occasion. In remarks that seemed mainly directed at the Europeans in the room, he warned that a "unipolar world" - meaning one dominated by the United States - would prove "pernicious not only for all those within this system but also for the sovereign itself." America's "hyper use of force," Putin said, was "plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." Speaking at a time when neither Iraq nor Afghanistan seemed especially good advertisements for U.S. military intervention, those words had a certain force, especially in German ears. ..."
"... If I look back on what I thought and wrote during the administration of George W. Bush, I would say that I underestimated the extent to which the expansion of both NATO and the European Union was antagonizing the Russians. ..."
"... Though notionally intended to detect and counter Iranian missiles, these installations were bound to be regarded by the Russians as directed at them. The subsequent deployment of Iskander short-range missiles to Kaliningrad was a predictable retaliation. ..."
"... The biggest miscalculation, however, was the willingness of the Bush administration to consider Ukraine for NATO membership and the later backing by the Obama administration of EU efforts to offer Ukraine an association agreement. ..."
"... This was despite an explicit warning from Putin's aide Sergei Glazyev, who attended the conference, that signing the EU association agreement would lead to "political and social unrest," a dramatic decline in living standards, and "chaos." ..."
"... "I don't really even need George Kennan right now," President Obama told the New Yorker ..."
"... It was foolish to expect Russians to view with equanimity the departure into the Western sphere of influence of the heartland of medieval Russia, the breadbasket of the tsarist empire, the setting for Mikhail Bulgakov's The White Guard ..."
"... One might have thought the events of 2014 would have taught U.S. policymakers a lesson. Yet the Obama administration has persisted in misreading Russia. It was arguably a mistake to leave Germany and France to handle the Ukraine crisis, when more direct U.S. involvement might have made the Minsk agreements effective. ..."
"... President Obama has been right in saying that Russia is a much weaker power than the United States. His failure has been to exploit that American advantage. ..."
"... After all, an economic system that prefers an oil price closer to $100 a barrel than $50 benefits more than most from escalating conflict in the Middle East and North Africa - preferably conflict that spills over into the oil fields of the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... However, if that is the goal of Russia's strategy, then it is hard to see for how much longer Beijing and Moscow will be able to cooperate in the Security Council. Beijing needs stability in oil production and low oil prices as much as Russia needs the opposite. Because of recent tensions with the United States, Russia has been acquiescent as the "One Belt, One Road" program extends China's economic influence into Central Asia, once a Russian domain. There is potential conflict of interest there, too. ..."
Moscow may no longer be a superpower, but its revanchist politics are unsettling the international order. How should Donald
Trump deal with Vladimir Putin?
... ... ...
It did not have to be this way. Twenty-five years ago, the dissolution of the Soviet Union marked not only the end of the Cold
War but also the beginning of what should have been a golden era of friendly relations between Russia and the West. With enthusiasm,
it seemed, Russians embraced both capitalism and democracy. To an extent that was startling, Russian cities became Westernized. Empty
shelves and po-faced propaganda gave way to abundance and dazzling advertisements.
Contrary to the fears of some, there was a new world order after 1991. The world became a markedly more peaceful place as the
flows of money and arms that had turned so many regional disputes into proxy wars dried up. American economists rushed to advise
Russian politicians. American multinationals hurried to invest.
Go back a quarter century to 1991 and imagine three more or less equally plausible futures. First, imagine that the coup by hard-liners
in August of that year had been more competently executed and that the Soviet Union had been preserved. Second, imagine a much more
violent dissolution of the Soviet system in which ethnic and regional tensions escalated much further, producing the kind of "super-Yugoslavia"
Kissinger has occasionally warned about. Finally, imagine a happily-ever-after history, in which Russia's economy thrived on the
basis of capitalism and globalization, growing at Asian rates.
Russia could have been deep-frozen. It could have disintegrated. It could have boomed. No one in 1991 knew which of these futures
we would get. In fact, we got none of them. Russia has retained the democratic institutions that were established after 1991, but
the rule of law has not taken root, and, under Vladimir Putin, an authoritarian nationalist form of government has established itself
that is notably ruthless in its suppression of opposition and criticism. Despite centrifugal forces, most obviously in the Caucasus,
the Russian Federation has held together. However, the economy has performed much less well than might have been hoped. Between 1992
and 2016, the real compound annual
growth rate of Russian per capita GDP has been 1.5 percent. Compare that with equivalent figures for India (5.1 percent) and
China (8.9 percent).
Today, the Russian economy accounts for just over 3 percent of global output, according to the International Monetary Fund's
estimates based on purchasing
power parity. The U.S. share is 16 percent. The Chinese share is 18 percent. Calculated on a current dollar basis, Russia's GDP is
less than 7 percent of America's. The British economy is twice the size of Russia's.
Moreover, the reliance of the Russian economy on exported fossil fuels - as well as other primary products - is shocking. Nearly
two-thirds of Russian exports are petroleum (63 percent), according the
Observatory of Economic Complexity.
... ... ...
Nevertheless, it is important to remember what exactly Putin said on that occasion. In remarks that seemed mainly directed
at the Europeans in the room, he warned that a "unipolar world" - meaning one dominated by the United States - would prove "pernicious
not only for all those within this system but also for the sovereign itself." America's "hyper use of force," Putin said, was "plunging
the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." Speaking at a time when neither Iraq nor Afghanistan seemed especially good advertisements
for U.S. military intervention, those words had a certain force, especially in German ears.
Nearly 10 years later, even Putin's most splenetic critics would be well-advised to reflect for a moment on our own part in the
deterioration of relations between Washington and Moscow. The Russian view that the fault lies partly with Western overreach deserves
to be taken more seriously than it generally is.
Is the West to blame?
If I look back on what I thought and wrote during the administration of George W. Bush, I would say that I underestimated
the extent to which the expansion of both NATO and the European Union was antagonizing the Russians.
Certain decisions still seem to me defensible. Given their experiences in the middle of the 20th century, the Poles and the Czechs
deserved both the security afforded by NATO membership (from 1999, when they joined along with Hungary) and the economic opportunities
offered by EU membership (from 2004). Yet the U.S. decision in March 2007 to build an anti-ballistic missile defense site in Poland
along with a radar station in the Czech Republic seems, with hindsight, more questionable, as does the subsequent decision to deploy
10 two-stage missile interceptors and a battery of MIM-104 Patriot missiles in Poland. Though notionally intended to detect and
counter Iranian missiles, these installations were bound to be regarded by the Russians as directed at them. The
subsequent deployment of Iskander
short-range missiles to Kaliningrad was a predictable retaliation.
A similar act of retaliation followed in 2008 when, with encouragement from some EU states, Kosovo unilaterally declared independence
from Serbia. In response, Russia recognized rebels in South
Ossetia and Abkhazia and invaded those parts of Georgia. From a Russian perspective, this was no different from what the West had
done in Kosovo.
The biggest miscalculation, however, was the willingness of the Bush administration to consider Ukraine for NATO membership
and the later backing by the Obama administration of EU efforts to offer Ukraine an association agreement. I well remember the
giddy mood at a pro-European conference in Yalta in September 2013, when Western representatives almost unanimously exhorted Ukraine
to follow the Polish path. Not nearly enough consideration was given to the very different way Russia regards Ukraine nor to the
obvious West-East divisions within Ukraine itself. This was despite an explicit
warning from Putin's
aide Sergei Glazyev, who attended the conference, that signing the EU association agreement would lead to "political and social unrest,"
a dramatic decline in living standards, and "chaos."
This is not in any way to legitimize the Russian actions of 2014, which were in clear violation of international law and agreements.
It is to criticize successive administrations for paying too little heed to Russia's sensitivities and likely reactions.
"I don't really even need George Kennan right now," President Obama
told the New Yorker's
David Remnick in early 2014. The very opposite was true. He and his predecessor badly needed advisors who understood Russia as well
as Kennan did. As Kissinger has often remarked, history is to nations what character is to people. In recent years, American
policymakers have tended to forget that and then to wax indignant when other states act in ways that a knowledge of history might
have enabled them to anticipate. No country, it might be said, has had its character more conditioned by its history than Russia.
It was foolish to expect Russians to view with equanimity the departure into the Western sphere of influence of the heartland of
medieval Russia, the breadbasket of the tsarist empire, the setting for Mikhail Bulgakov's The White Guard, the crime
scene of Joseph Stalin's man-made famine, and the main target of Adolf Hitler's Operation Barbarossa.
One might have thought the events of 2014 would have taught U.S. policymakers a lesson. Yet the Obama administration has persisted
in misreading Russia. It was arguably a mistake to leave Germany and France to handle the Ukraine crisis, when more direct U.S. involvement
might have made the Minsk agreements effective. It was certainly a disastrous blunder to give Putin an admission ticket into
the Syrian conflict by leaving to him the (partial) removal of Bashar al-Assad's chemical weapons. One of Kissinger's lasting achievements
in the early 1970s was to squeeze the Soviets out of the Middle East. The Obama administration has undone that, with dire consequences.
We see in Aleppo the Russian military for what it is: a master of the mid-20th-century tactic of winning victories through the indiscriminate
bombing of cities.
Left: Free Syrian Army fighters fire an anti-aircraft weapon in Aleppo on Dec. 12. (Photo by AFP/Getty Images); Right: Far-right
Ukrainian activists attack the office of the pro-Russian movement "Ukrainian Choice" in Kiev on Nov. 21. (Photo by SERGEI SUPINSKY/AFP/Getty
Images)
What price peace?
Yet I remain to be convinced that the correct response to these errors of American policy is to swing from underestimating Russia
to overestimating it. Such an approach has the potential to be just another variation on the theme of misunderstanding.
It is not difficult to infer what Putin would like to get in any "great deal" between himself and Trump. Item No. 1 would be a
lifting of sanctions. Item No. 2 would be an end to the war in Syria on Russia's terms - which would include the preservation of
Assad in power for at least some "decent interval." Item No. 3 would be a de facto recognition of Russia's annexation of Crimea and
some constitutional change designed to render the government in Kiev impotent by giving the country's eastern Donbass region a permanent
pro-Russian veto power.
What is hard to understand is why the United States would want give Russia even a fraction of all this. What exactly would Russia
be giving the United States in return for such concessions? That is the question that Trump's national security team needs to ask
itself before he so much as takes a courtesy call from the Kremlin.
There is no question that the war in Syria needs to end, just as the frozen conflict in eastern Ukraine needs resolution. But
the terms of peace can and must be very different from those that Putin has in mind. Any deal that pacified Syria by sacrificing
Ukraine would be a grave mistake.
President Obama has been right in saying that Russia is a much weaker power than the United States. His failure has been to
exploit that American advantage.
... ... ...
The Russian Question itself can be settled another day. But by reframing the international order on the basis of cooperation rather
than deadlock in the Security Council, the United States at least poses the question in a new way. Will Russia learn to cooperate
with the other great powers? Or will it continue to be the opponent of international order? Perhaps the latter is the option it will
choose. After all, an economic system that prefers an oil price closer to $100 a barrel than $50 benefits more than most from
escalating conflict in the Middle East and North Africa - preferably conflict that spills over into the oil fields of the Persian
Gulf.
However, if that is the goal of Russia's strategy, then it is hard to see for how much longer Beijing and Moscow will be able
to cooperate in the Security Council. Beijing needs stability in oil production and low oil prices as much as Russia needs the opposite.
Because of recent tensions with the United States, Russia has been acquiescent as the "One Belt, One Road" program extends China's
economic influence into Central Asia, once a Russian domain. There is potential conflict of interest there, too.
"... "We live at the time of a certain degrading of European institutions and their external weakening, including by Russia. You can accept it and go with the flow but you can also recognize the fact try to resist it." ..."
Ha, ha!!! The Victim Of The Aggressor Country seldom fails to entertain. Here we have VR Deputy Chairperson Ira Gerashchenko
bossing Europe around , and telling it that the Victim Of The Aggressor Country's parliamentary delegation will continue to
insist on Russia not returning to the Council of Europe. Because, she says, Russia has stolen part of the territory of the VOTAC
which was a gift from Russia in the first place (although she doesn't mention that last part), thereby setting a precedent for
every country which has a province 'liberated' by the west to term it stolen by the west. But that wasn't my favourite part. No;
this is – "We live at the time of a certain degrading of European institutions and their external weakening, including by
Russia. You can accept it and go with the flow but you can also recognize the fact try to resist it."
Beautiful, Ira!! Inspiring!! And how many degraded European leaders are Billionaires who openly own an impressive slate of
businesses and media in their countries, which they
continue to operate and profit from while piously declaring their only interest is the welfare of the country? Which is, by
the bye,
the most corrupt country in Europe ?
How many Prosecutors-General has the VOTAC had since its glorious liberation from the yoke of the Moskali? Yes, you can certainly
teach Yurrup a thing or two about integrity.
It must be embarrassing to be European these days. To be dressed down by the corrupt country you support on handouts because
you are not doing enough to support it. First we had the 'Me' generation. Then we had the 'Me' country.
Brennan is probably one of the key figures in color revolution against Trump that was launched after the elections...
Looks like both Brennan and Clapper suffer from the acute case of Anti-Russian paranoia along with Full Spectrum Dominance
hallucinations.
Notable quotes:
"... In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the leaders of this campaign. ..."
"... The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations ..."
"... So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions? ..."
"... There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact." ..."
"... Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria. ..."
"... In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans. After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." . ..."
"... Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference" in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News) ..."
"... So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it? ..."
"... Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping program ..."
"... So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA ..."
"... As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say. ..."
"... From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper. ..."
"... Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington establishment will never allow to happen. ..."
"... What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons. ..."
"... Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. ..."
"... Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it. ..."
"... Professional liars. But, there was some question/doubt about this? ..."
"... As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine. ..."
On Sunday, Former CIA Director John Brennan and Former National Intelligence Director (NID) James Clapper appeared on CNN's morning
talk show, State of the Union, to discuss Donald Trump's brief meeting with Vladimir Putin in Vietnam. The two ex-Intel chiefs were
sharply critical of Trump and wondered why the president did not "not acknowledge and embrace" the idea that Russia meddled in the
2016 elections. According to Brennan, Russia not only "poses a national security problem" for the US, but also "Putin is committed
to undermining our system, our democracy, and our whole process."
Naturally, CNN anchor, Jake Tapper, never challenged Brennan or Clapper on any of the many claims they made regarding Russia nor
did he interrupt either man while they made, what appeared to be, carefully scripted remarks about Trump, Putin and the ongoing investigation.
There were no surprise announcements during the interview and neither Brennan or Clapper added anything new to the list of allegations
that have been repeated ad nauseam in the media for the last year. The only time Tapper veered off course at all was when he asked
Brennan whether he thought "any laws were broken by the Trump campaign? Here's what Brennan said:
I'm just a former intelligence officer. I never had the responsibility for determining whether or not criminal actions were
taken. But, since leaving office on the 20th of January, I think more and more of this iceberg is emerging above the surface of
the water, some of the things that I knew about, but some of the things I didn't know about, in terms of some of the social media
efforts that Russia employed. So, I think what Bob Mueller, who, again, is another quintessential public servant, is doing is
trying to get to the bottom of this. And I think we're going to find out how large this iceberg really is.
In other words, after an arduous 12 month-long investigation involving both Houses of Congress, a Special Counsel, and a small
army of high-paid Washington attorneys, the only straw Brennan has found to hold on to, is a few innocuous advertisements posted
on Facebook and Twitter that had no noticeable impact on the election at all. That's a very weak foundation upon which to build a
case for foreign espionage or presidential collusion. It's hard not to conclude that the public has been seriously misled by the
leaders of this campaign.
The Intel bosses continue to believe that they can overcome the lack of evidence by repeating the same claims over and over
again. The problem with this theory is that Brennan's claims don't match the findings of his own "Gold Standard" report, the so called
Intelligence Community Assessment or ICA which was published on January 6, 2017 and which supposedly provides rock solid evidence
of Russian meddling. The greatly over-hyped ICA proves nothing of the kind, in fact, the report features a sweeping disclaimer that
cautions readers against drawing any rash conclusions from the analysts observations. Here's the money-quote from the report:
Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected
information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.
So, while Brennan continues to insist that the Kremlin was involved in the elections, his own analysts suggest that any such
judgments should be taken with a very large grain of salt. Nothing is certain, information is "incomplete or fragmentary", and the
entire report is based on what-amounts-to 'educated guesswork.' Is Brennan confused about the report's findings or is he deliberately
trying to mislead the American people about its conclusions?
Here's Brennan again on Sunday:
I think Mr. Trump knows that the intelligence agencies, specifically CIA, NSA and FBI, the ones that really have responsibility
for counterintelligence and looking at what Russia does, it's very clear that the Russians interfered in the election. And it's
still puzzling as to why Mr. Trump does not acknowledge that and embrace it, and also push back hard against Mr. Putin. The Russian
threat to our democracy and our democratic foundations is real.
There appears to be a significant discrepancy between Brennan's unshakable belief in Russian intervention and the findings
of his own "hand picked" analysts who said with emphatic clarity: "Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows
something to be a fact."
Why is it so hard for Brennan to wrap his mind around that simple, unambiguous statement? The reason Brennan's intelligence analysts
admit that they have no proof, is because they have no proof. That might sound obvious, but we have to assume that it isn't given
that both Houses of Congress and a Special Counsel are still bogged down in an investigation that has yet to provide even a solid
lead let alone any compelling evidence.
We also have to assume that most people do not understand that there is not sufficient evidence to justify the massive investigations
that are currently underway. (What probable cause?) Adds placed in Facebook do not constitute hard evidence of foreign espionage
or election rigging. They indicate the desperation of the people who are leading the investigation. The fact that serious people
are even talking about social media just underscores the fact that the search for proof has produced nothing.
These investigations are taking place because powerful elites want to vilify an emerging geopolitical rival (Russia) and prevent
Trump from normalizing relations with Moscow, not because there is any evidence of criminal wrongdoing. As the Intel analysts themselves
acknowledge, there is no proof of criminal wrongdoing or any other wrongdoing for that matter. What there is, is a political agenda
to discredit Trump and demonize Russia. That's the fuel that is driving the present campaign.
Russia-gate is not about 'meddling', it's about politics. And Brennan and Clapper are critical players in the current drama. They're
supposed to be the elder statesmen who selflessly defend the country from foreign threats. But are they or is this just role-playing
that doesn't square with what we already know about the two men? Here's thumbnail sketch of Clapper written by former-CIA officer
Ray McGovern that will help to clarify the point:
Clapper played a key role in the bogus Iraq-WMD intelligence when he was head of the National Geo-spatial Agency and hid
the fact that there was zero evidence in satellite imagery of any weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq invasion. When no
WMDs were found, Clapper told the media that he thought they were shipped off to Syria.
In 2013, Clapper perjured himself before Congress by denying NSA's unconstitutional blanket surveillance of Americans.
After evidence emerged revealing the falsity of Clapper's testimony, he wrote a letter to Congress admitting, "My response was
clearly erroneous – for which I apologize." .
Clapper also has demonstrated an ugly bias about Russians. On May 28, as a former DNI, Clapper explained Russian "interference"
in the U.S. election to NBC's Chuck Todd on May 28 with a tutorial on what everyone should know about "the historical practices
of the Russians." Clapper said, "the Russians, typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever,
which is a typical Russian technique." ("Mocking Trump Doesn't Prove Russia's Guilt", Ray McGovern, Consortium News)
So, Clapper concealed information that could have slowed or prevented the rush to war in Iraq. That's a significant failing
on his part that suggests either poor judgment or moral weakness. Which is it?
He also lied about spying on the American people. Why? Why would he do that? And why should we trust someone who not only spied
on us but also paved the way to war in Iraq?
And the rap-sheet on Brennan is even worse than Clapper's. Check out this blurb from Glenn Greenwald at The Guardian:
"Brennan, as a Bush-era CIA official, had expressly endorsed Bush's programs of torture (other than waterboarding) and
rendition and also was a vocal advocate of immunizing lawbreaking telecoms for their role in the illegal Bush NSA eavesdropping
program
Obama then appointed him as his top counter-terrorism adviser . In that position, Brennan last year got caught outright lying
when he claimed Obama's drone program caused no civilian deaths in Pakistan over the prior year .
Brennan has also been in charge of many of Obama's most controversial and radical policies, including "signature strikes" in
Yemen – targeting people without even knowing who they are – and generally seizing the power to determine who will be marked for
execution without any due process, oversight or transparency .." ("John Brennan's extremism and dishonesty rewarded with CIA Director
nomination", Glenn Greenwald, The Guardian)
So, Brennan supported kidnapping (rendition), torture (enhanced interrogation techniques) and targeted assassinations (drone
attacks). And this is the man we are supposed to trust about Russia? Keep in mind, the jihadist militants that have been tearing
apart Syria for the last six years were armed and trained by the CIA Brennan's CIA
These radical militias have been defeated largely due to Russian military intervention. Do you think that this defeat at the hands
of Putin may have shaped Brennan's attitude towards Russia?
Of course, it has. Brennan never makes any attempt to conceal his hatred for Putin or Russia.
As we noted earlier, Brennan and Clapper are central figures in the Russia-gate story, but their records show we can't trust
what they have to say. They are like the eyewitness in a murder trial whose testimony is 'thrown out' because he is exposed as a
compulsive liar. The same rule applies to Clapper and Brennan, that is, when the main proponents of the Russia hacking story are
shown to be untrustworthy, we must discount what they have to say.
Which is why the Russia-gate narrative is beginning to unravel.
From the presented evidence: Serial Fabricators! I have much more confidence in the veracity of used car salesmen than
that of Messrs. Brennan and Clapper.
Becoming friends with Russia, the only potential enemy available, would destroy the MIC. A real possibility the Washington
establishment will never allow to happen.
What is that having to do with the content of Mr. Whitney's good article? Mr. Whitney, to me you are of the quarter or
less of Counterpunch writers who are to making sense most of the time. . . . and am always liking your writing style. Trump could
have been or be a great pres. of your nation, but between dropping advisors for no good reason, becoming frightened and drawing
away from his desire for rapprochement with the Russian Federation, worst of all, from this distant perspective, to appointing
his daughter and son-in-law as senior advisors. Both are overpriveleged morons.
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister. He is an extreme leftist
and there should be an investigation into how this wacko was allowed to join the CIA – he openly admits voting for CPUSA chief
Gus Hall in 1976. Brennan is, besides, a resentful CIA failure.
He was denied entry to the elite Directorate of Operations (or couldn't cut the mustard and was banished from it) and spent
his career stewing away in anger as a despised analyst at CIA headquarters.
Brennan spent his time at CIA attempting to undermine the organization.
Pompeo should have reversed every single thing he did the minute he took office, starting with firing every CIA employee
brought into the Agency by Brennan (this can be done – CIA employees have no Civil Service protection). That Brennan is still
at large after his outrageous involvement in the phony Russia dossier is an indictment of Jeff Sessions, Trump, the DOJ and the
FBI. He could be indicted on a host of Federal charges if somebody had the guts to do it.
We all know that the Russiagate narrative isn't starting to unravel and this and other (wholly untrustworthy) internet authors'
claims are not proved by simply repeating them over and over again (to borrow a phrase!). In fact, Russiagate is expanding. It
has gone from mere Russian interference in the election to dubious financial transactions between wealthy Americans, including
Trump, and, to put it very politely, "dubious" Russians. It has also expanded to Europe.
What is emerging, therefore, is a collusion between wealthy Americans, no doubt with major investments in Russia, US internet
sites, probably financed by the aforementioned wealthy Americans, dubious Russian financiers, Putin, Marine Le Pen, Nigel Farage
and no doubt others to manipulate, perhaps rig, elections and referenda in the US and Europe. It's not about politics. It's about
money and conflicts of interest.
We also get the now standard argument that Trump is just dying to "normalize" relations with Russia but is being held back
by some dastardly group or other. As we all know, of course, "normalizing relations with Moscow" in Orwellian translates into
English as "capitulating to Putin in Ukraine". Putin's frantic attempts to get Trump to let him win in Syria is why this old line
is suddenly back on the table.
Finally, the idea of the Russian Federation as an emerging geopolitical rival is amusing. That country has existed as a sovereign
state only for about 25 years and is merely the largest piece of wreckage from the collapse of the Soviet Union. In a world that
is slowly being dominated by China, Russia is a very minor player.
Brennan and Clapper are agent provocateurs for the Zionists who control the U.S. government and the 17 gestapo agencies which
in fact are controlled by dual citizen Zionists ie ISRAEL.
Brennan and Clapper are under Zionist control and thus are traitors to the constitution of America and should be tried and
sent to prison for life.
It's not about politics. It's about money and conflicts of interest.
And since when are the three not related?
It's too bad that good people, like MW, need to waste their time and energy investigating and publishing what's obviously state
sponsored utter rubbish designed to support some of the money bag crowd in one way or another.
Why does it even need to be stated that most of what's supposed to be a big deal to us prols, peasants and piss ants is nothing
but propaganda, and of a particularly transparent and low grade variety,even?
Clapper is a befuddled old fool and can be safely ignored. Brennan is something far more sinister.
Clapper told some whoppers while he was head of all our intelligence agencies under Obama. But you are correct that Brennan
is far more toxic. He was this way under Obama and post-Obama. He has been one of the biggest Trump saboteurs. And most effective.
One ugly customer!
Why should we care if the russians spent billions on trying to exert their influence on us, we do it we have an alphabet soup
of projects to do exactly that and god knows what else to every nation on earth.In fact we do it to our own people these social
websites and "news" sites universities media etc are nothing but one huge propaganda machine intended to render democracy nothing
more than a distraction so elites can go about doing what they want.
Long ago, when car radio's still had antennae long enough to receive long wave transmissions, I often listened to BBCW radio,
848 Mhz.
I still remember the statement 'you can always tell when a politician lies, he then moves his lips'.
Capitulating to Putin in Ukraine. The assertion is that the CIA spent five billion dollar in Ukraine in order to overthrow
the legitimate democratic government. Of course nobody can prove the assertion. What is crystal clear is that the members of EU
parliament Verhofstadt, Van Baalen and Timmermans held speeches in Kiev urging the people to overthrow the government.
Their speeches could be seen live on tv, or were rebroadcast.
Timmermans held the crocodile tears speech at the UN about the MH17 victims. How, why, and through whom over 300 people were
killed in Ukraine airspace we do not know until now. All there is is vague insinuations towards Russia, the country for which
the disaster was a disaster, EU sanctions all of a sudden were possible.
That the political annexation by the west failed is best seen in E Ukraine, where the wealth is, in gas and oil. A son, and
a son in law, of Biden, and Kerry were promised well paid jobs as CEO's of companies who were to exploit the E Ukrainian wealth,
they are still waiting for the jobs.
I remember when they actually prosecuted for someone for lying to Congress. Unfortunately, it was a former baseball player
named Roger Clemons over the vitally important question of whether or not he had taken steroids. Obviously a vital question that
every sports tabloid wants to know.
I just hope that the Russians realize that with enormous power comes enormous responsibility. I hope that they'll choose the next
US president wisely.
There is real danger there is -- now that we know that the Russians can elect pretty much anyone in the US – that come the
next elections, some charismatic, possibly independent candidate, might seduce the Russians with promises of improved ties, and
after they elect him, he might turn to be a real wacko job who might end up not only worsening the ties between the superpowers,
but he might end up destroying the world. Be cautious, Russians.
If we want to talk about meddling in the election ..
Lets compare CNN giving hours and hours of free and very favorable air time to the Hillary campaign?
versus
A news website paying for a handful of thousand dollar adds on Twitter?
I remember studies that showed that during the crooked, corrupt and rigged Democratic Primaries, that there was a large disparity
in favorable stories about Hillary versus the number that were favorable for Bernie. And CNN happily seemed to give lots of airtime
to any Hillary surrogate who wanted to red bait and smear Bernie as a socialist.
We saw the same sort of disparity in the amount of favorable coverage of Trump vs Hillary. Likewise, any Hillary surrogate
who wanted to spread the official campaign message that Trump was a racist, was a fascist, and said some rude things about women
was always welcome on the CNN airwaves.
And, just recently, we had the web page editor for the NYT state publicly that they deliberately tilted their web page stories
to convince voters to vote against Trump.
And that's just the tip of the iceberg if we want to talk about how the American corporate (aka mainstream) media tried very
hard to tilt the whole election towards putting the Crooked Clintons back into the White House.
But, OMG, the story in the same corrupt media is that awful and evil RT spend a whole thousand dollars on an ad trying to promote
their website.
As to the US spending $5 billion of US taxpayers money to 'destabilize Ukraine', we can prove that. Or at least we can
take the word of a US official that this was true. Hillary's Assistant Secretary of State said this publicly at the National Press
Club on Dec 13, 2013 . a few months before the violent coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Ukraine.
Hillary is the one who spend BILLIONS trying to become President. The only thing that so far has been traced to Russia is a
few hundred thousand in Twitter Ads that otherwise served the legitimate purpose of trying to promote the web news sites. And
most of those ads didn't concern political stories, but instead stories about cute puppies to draw clicks.
The interesting development is that, after no proof for the "Russian hacking" allegations could be found, they turned to simple
ads (for amounts that are extremely small compared to what the campaigns spent) and social media postings. This was accompanied
by loosening the criteria, they did not even pretend any more that they had indications that these social media activities were
connected to the Russian state, they just had to be "Russia-linked". In the case of Twitter, this includes anyone who has ever
logged in from Russia, uses Cyrillic signs in the account metadata (that could also be connected with a number of other countries),
logged in from a Russian IP address, paid something with a Russian credit card etc., and only one condition had to be fulfilled
for an account to be counted as "Russia-linked".
Of course, with such a large country, there are certainly some social media activities that are "linked" with it. There can
be many reasons – people who travel, migrants in both directions, or simply Russians with an interest in US politics. From what
is known, the ads and postings were so diverse – some right-wing and pro-Trump, some leftwing or critical of Trump, and many not
directly linked to the elections – and distributed over a large time with many after the elections that it does not seem too unlikely
as a result of social media activities of random people who have some connection with Russia.
Of course, we may speculate in each case, why someone posted something or bought an ad. But before speculating, it would be
necessary to have data about ads and social media postings linked to other countries. For example, it could be determined with
the same criteria which ads and postings were Brazile-linked, Germany-linked, and Philippines-linked. Probably, there, a similar
random collection would emerge. Only if there is something special about the Russia-linked ads and postings, it would even make
sense to speculate about the reasons.
We don't know whether these "Russia-linked" ads and social media positings were just random activities by people related to
Russia (e.g. about 2% of the US population have Russian as their native language, some may not have many contacts with Russia
any more and don't travel there regularly, but others do) or whether a part of them was the result of an organized campaign, but
in any case, from what was written in the media, the volume of these social media activities does not seem to be very large (but
in order to judge that, social media activities linked to other countries with the same criteria would be needed).
What I find hilarious is how people sometimes try to insert a collusion angle even if it is not about hacking, but about social
media ads and postings. This becomes completely absurd. Then, the idea is that Russians contacted the Trump campaign in order
to find out which ads they should buy and what they should post on social media. Why should they do so? If the Trump campaign
had ideas about what to post and what kind of ads to buy, why didn't they just do it themselves or via an American company? What
would be the point of the Trump campaign spending $564 million on the campaign, but then do a small part of the campaign via Russians
who then spent a few thousand dollars for buying ads and posting messages the Trump campaign had advised them to via "collusion"?
After all, if they had done it themselves or via an American intermediary, there would be nothing nefarious or suspicious about
this, this idea that for a very small part of their campaign, they colluded with Russians and told them what to post and which
ads to buy almost sounds as if they deliberately wanted to behave in a strange way that could then fit a preconceived collusion
narrative. And even if they had outsourced some small part of their campaign to a Russian company for some odd reasons, would
that make it nefarious?
I think the Russiagate theorists should at least make sure that their theories don't violate basic principles of common sense.
If they want to use the hacking story, the involvement of Russian secret services might theoretically make sense – it might not
be so easy for the Trump campaign to hack servers themselves (though phishing is hardly something so sophisticated that only secret
services can do it, we're not talking about something like Stuxnet), and something illegal would be involved. That is a theory
that could in principle make sense, the only problem is, that no evidence for this is available (and the Russians are certainly
not the only ones who might have had an interest in these mails, another plausible theory is that it was an insider who disliked
how the Clinton campaign took over the DNC early on and created better conditions for Clinton than for Sanders, and it could have
been any hacker who, for some reason disliked Hillary Clinton, the DNC, and Podesta). If the Russiagate theorists switch over
to simple social media activity because there is no evidence for Russian secret services being responsible for giving e-mails
to Wikileaks, they also have to sacrifice the whole "collusion" part of the story. It might be that some Russians used social
media in an organized way, but to invent a story that the Trump campaign "colluded" with Russians for a small part of their social
media election campaign hardly makes sense.
The only condition under which it might somehow make sense would be if someone thought Russians are intellectually vastly superior
to Americans and know much better what potential voters care about, and their capabilities are even vastly above Cambridge Analytics.
Then, it might somehow make sense for the Trump campaign to hand over a part of the social media activities to Russians, and this
might somehow be seen as an unfair advantage – but again, if, with that assumption, the Russians are intellectually so vastly
superior that can have a significant influence with very small amounts of money and works while the Trump and Clinton campaigns
spend billions, why would they have to "collude" with the Trump campaign, people who would be intellectually so much below them
according to that assumption? Maybe real genius for targeting potential voters only emerges when Americans and Russians with complementary
abilities collaborate? In any case, it is already very difficult just to construct a version of that theory that does not violate
basic principles of common sense.
Sarcasm is probably the only way to deal with it. I find myself all the time asking people if they are serious or joking. Sadly,
many claim they are serious.
Currently it seems that peaceful and productive relations with a foreign power are Bad Things.
Mr Putin did amusingly say one time to a ditzy US 'journalist':
"Have you all lost your minds over there?"
I really truly believe that the only way to force the stupids who came up with that ridiculous story about "Russia influencing
the elections" – to drop it – is to make incessantly fun of them until they finally realize how really truly stupid they are.
The facts support this viewpoint, including the dual citizen element of it. By the way, I oppose the death penalty except if
it is applied to major serial war criminals. I recognize that all legal systems are too corrupt to be given the power of life
and death, and that this is particularly true of the US system, which sets the benchmark for corruption. The corruption of the
US political system, meanwhile, is revealed by the fact that this absurd Russiagate story is still being peddled and is accepted
as received wisdom despite the manifold evidence proving its absurd falsity. What the article shows is that Clapper and Brennan
are serial war criminals and that their latest gambit threatens our very existence. We would be better off if the utopia of a
legal system incorruptible enough to allow for the death penalty did exist in the US rather than the corrupt system allowing somebody
like Mueller to act extra-legally on this absurd basis was continuing in operation. By the way, the Canadian satellite media is
still publishing stories trying to resuscitate the Steele dossier paid by the DNC and the yankee government as factual. The whole
thing would be comical if it were not deadly serious. Those still backing the story publicly are either dangerously deluded or
criminal themselves.
The U.S. gov is a criminal organization ran by criminal for criminals and sexual perverts and pedophiles , if interested, read
these two books , THE FRANKLIN COVERUP by the late John DeCamp and THE TRANCE FORMATIO of AMERICA by Cathy Obrien and see their
interviews on YouTube, the books can be had on amazon.com.
The books reveal a shocking look at the top ones in the demonrat and republicon parties, and I do mean shocking.
"The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as
a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international
mainstream media.
The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers They claim
that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to
be paid 5000 USD after the "job is done", they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and
Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command
of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger. The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous
Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car The weapons came on
stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. "There were three or four weapons in
each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges." – witnesses Nergadze.
The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos.
"I listened to the screams," recalls Revazishvili. "There were many dead and injured downstairs. My first and only thought was
to leave in a hurry before they caught up with me. Otherwise, they would tear me apart."
Four years later, Revazishvili and his two companions report they have not yet received the promised 5000 USD bills as a payment
and have decided to tell the truth about those who "used and abandoned" them."
Well that was a clear picture of a sausage-making during the US-sponsored regime change in Ukraine. The neo-Nazi in the US-supported
"government" in Kiev came about naturally.
An addition to the previous post.
The Maidan revolution and its neo-Nazi consequence makes an amazing monument to the Kagans' clan:
"Thousands of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists marched in Kiev, Thursday, celebrating the 106th birthday of the Organization of
Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN) leader Stepan Bandera [famous Nazis collaborator]. Among the main organisers were representatives
of Right Sector and Svoboda." https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6a7_1420142767#gDHooVSL6b0yQ1SG.99
"Members of the Ukrainian neo-Nazi Azov volunteer battalion and their ultranationalist civilian sympathizers have conducted
a torchlit procession in the center of the eastern Ukrainian city of Mariupol, held under the slogan "coming after you!"
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_72571.shtml
The wide-spread desecration of Jewish cemetries by Ukrainian thugs (a post-Maidan phenomenon) has spilled to Poland: "Yet another
case of vandalism by Ukrainian nationalists is on the record in Poland. This time, an old Jewish cemetery in Kraków became the
target of thugs from the neighboring state. The graves of Polish Jews who died over a century ago were destroyed by those hot-blood
Ukrainians."
https://www.reddit.com/r/antisemitism/comments/5npnj5/ukrainian_nationalists_stand_behind_desecration/
"Vandals desecrated the Korinovskaya Jewish Cemetery in Kiev. They destroyed two entire sections: 27 and 28. These acts of
vandalism are very systematic: every night they destroy one or two headstones. According to the elderly women who look after the
place, these vandals are usually drunken youths who come there to wreak destruction. The Zaddik of Chernobyl is buried in this
cemetery. These vandals destroyed his gravestone, smearing Satanic Cult symbols on it."
"The interviews with three snipers of Georgian nationality, conducted by the Italian journalist Gian Micalessin and aired as
a breathtaking documentary on Milan-based Canale 5 (Matrix program) last week, still have not paved its way to the international
mainstream media.
The documentary features Alexander Revazishvili, Koba Nergadze and Zalogi Kvaratskhelia, Georgian military officers They claim
that on Jan 15, 2014 they landed in Kiev equipped with fake documents Having received 1000 USD each one and being promised to
be paid 5000 USD after the "job is done", they were tasked to prepare sniper positions inside the buildings of Hotel Ukraine and
Conservatory, dominant over the Maidan Square. Along with other snipers (some of them were Lithuanians) they were put under command
of an American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger.
The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous
Segrey Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car The weapons came on
stage on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. "There were three or four weapons in
each bag, there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges." – witnesses Nergadze.
The following day, Mamulashvili and Pashinsky explained to snipers that they should shoot at the square and sow chaos.
"I listened to the screams," recalls Revazishvili. "There were many dead and injured downstairs. My first and only thought was
to leave in a hurry before they caught up with me. Otherwise, they would tear me apart."
Four years later, Revazishvili and his two companions report they have not yet received the promised 5000 USD bills as a payment
and have decided to tell the truth about those who "used and abandoned" them."
Well that was a clear picture of a sausage-making during the US-sponsored regime change in Ukraine. The neo-Nazi in the US-supported
"government" in Kiev came about naturally.
American military operative Brian Christopher Boyenger. The coordinating team also included Mamulashvili and infamous Segrey
Pashinsky, who was detained by protesters on Feb 18, 2017 with a sniper rifle in the boot of his car The weapons came on stage
on February 18 and were distributed to the various Georgian and Lithuanian groups. "There were three or four weapons in each bag,
there were Makarov guns, AKM guns, rifles, and a lot of cartridges." – witnesses Nergadze.
"I listened to the screams," recalls Revazishvili. "There were many dead and injured downstairs. My first and only thought was
to leave in a hurry before they caught up with me. Otherwise, they would tear me apart."
That's good: "What is disturbing
with the "blame Putin" stance endorsed by serious Western politicians, analysts and news media outlets is that it makes the Russian
leader appear omnipotent while making the rest of us seem impotent. "
Notable quotes:
"... The real problem is where the paranoia takes you. Western politicians and commentators are disturbingly eager to blame the impact of Russian propaganda or the manipulations of the Federal Security Service for the problems of our democracies. Mr. Putin obviously will benefit from Brexit, and may even have put a finger on the scale, but is that really the problem? And do we really believe that Mr. Trump's xenophobic appeal would collapse overnight if the Kremlin put its power behind Hillary Clinton? ..."
"... What is disturbing with the "blame Putin" stance endorsed by serious Western politicians, analysts and news media outlets is that it makes the Russian leader appear omnipotent while making the rest of us seem impotent. ..."
The real problem is where the paranoia takes you. Western politicians and commentators are disturbingly eager to blame the impact
of Russian propaganda or the manipulations of the Federal Security Service for the problems of our democracies. Mr. Putin obviously
will benefit from Brexit, and may even have put a finger on the scale, but is that really the problem? And do we really believe that
Mr. Trump's xenophobic appeal would collapse overnight if the Kremlin put its power behind Hillary Clinton?
What is disturbing
with the "blame Putin" stance endorsed by serious Western politicians, analysts and news media outlets is that it makes the Russian
leader appear omnipotent while making the rest of us seem impotent.
Casting blame in Moscow's direction prevents us from productively
discussing the grave problems we face as societies, and simplistically reduces the uncertainties and risks of an increasingly interdependent
world to the great powers rivalry.
[Nov 29, 2017] A brief overview of health care in Russia
Here and
here you can
read the firsthand account from an American, who relocated with his family to a small-ish Russian town near St.Pete. His blog
in general also full of very interesting trivia on comparing the life "here" and "over there", including schools, roads and bureaucracy.
Quite different from my expectation of spartan if not rudimentary medical care and overworked staff in a small Russian town. The
blog on schools was interesting as well. Given where Russia was in the 90's compared to now, it is easy to understand the strong
popular support for the government and Putin in particular.
Off topic but just saw a 2-3 minute piece on CBS news (a very long story for an American national news show) about a Russian
woman (former Playboy "model') who is challenging Putin. The reporter assured us the if she became too popular, Putin would never
allow her to win. The last time Russia was allowed to protest, according to the reported was back in 2011 where the masses were
demanding change. The implication being that a subsequent crackdown has suppressed further protest.
The piece showed her speaking to a group (the camera view was such that is was impossible to determine the audience size but
it had to be at least 10 and possibly up to 30 people). The reporter also speculated that the woman coud be a Kremlin plant to
create a fake opposition. Just a mishmash of a story all in all.
Speaking as someone who has been hospitalized 3 times in Russia and still live to talk about, I have no complaints.
In the twilight years of the USSR everything was deficit, including medicine, and the hospitals were often dilapidated, understaffed
and lacking modern equipment. It was socialized medicine, of course, but you only got the basics for "free". They would not let
you die, but if you wanted any "extras", you had to pay or provide "gifts" to the staff. The doctors were and still are good,
but were grossly underpaid.
I was first in hospital here, in isolation because I had diphtheria, in 1993. They saved me. I thought my number was up. When
I was recovering, a nurse asked me when my wife would visit me.
"I have no wife."
"Your friends, then?"
"No friends. I only arrived here 3 weeks ago."
"You're going to be hungry!"
Our first child was born in 1999. The maternity wing of Moscow Hospital №1, opened 1837, was nightmarish. I paid the anaesthetist
so that he could ensure that my wife did not suffer during her labour: it was a long, slow painful birth.
Our last child was born in 2008: brand new hospital; my wife had her own room; everything state-of the-art. I paid nothing.
My wife came out healthy with a healthy baby. I gave the obstetrician a "present" after delivery.
A bribe? Not in my opinion: just a token of gratitude for a job well done.
I broke my left collarbone at the dacha that same year. I was in a village/small town (Ruza) hospital. It was only 2-years
old. There were problems because I have broken both collarbones before. Anyway, the orthopaedic surgeon did a good job, and I
didn't pay anything: emergency treatment is free for British citizens, likewise Russians in the UK. A remnant of when the UK and
the USSR were glorious allies against the Beast.
I have also had varicose veins removed. Only 2 days in hospital. A job well done. I gave the surgeon a present. He didn't ask
me for one, but I thought it was right that I do so.
There have been great improvements in treatment and medical technology here. And the doctors and nursing staff are well trained
and competent.
Not perfect -- nothing is -- but more than satisfactory.
Yes, you do hear horror stories, as you do about the British National health Service, but all in all, satisfactory.
And there is a private health system now financed by private insurance.
And I have had dental treatment here "on the state": no complaints -- and "free", paid by taxation.
An old Russian colleague of mine has lived in Germany many years now, but he comes back to Moscow to see an orthodontist.
"They are just as good as in Germany, sometimes have even trained there, and much, much cheaper", he says.
PS I paid the anaesthetist so he could get the best stuff to help a woman in labour and was unavailable on the state health service.
I forget what it was called now: some German manufactured stuff, I suppose.
My wife said it was the norm in Romania to provide small gifts to bureaucrats – too small to be considered a bribe but a necessary
gesture of appreciation. Its not entirely different from the custom of bringing a small gift when visiting friends (bottle of
wine, flowers, box of chocolate, etc.).
Very much so; I'm sure I mentioned before the controversy surrounding my marriage in Russia; the waiting period that must follow
an application to marry is 30 days (I guess this is a period during which anyone opposing the marriage may make their case), while
a tourist visa is also for a maximum of 30 days. Therefore, I could not legally remain in Russia long enough to get married. Sveta
was very matter-of-fact about it; we would just, she said, announce that she was pregnant, which is one of the exceptional conditions
which will override the waiting period.
I said she would never get a doctor to sign a certificate that she was pregnant if she was not. Within a week she had her choice
of three. We gave the doctor who furnished the certificate some flowers and a box of chocolates. I never considered it a bribe,
and still do not, and the gift followed the act. We would have gotten the certificate anyway.
I notice that Russians typically take such a gift with them whenever they visit friends; Ukrainians do, too. They never arrive
empty-handed, and it seems much more a ritualized courtesy.
It seem odds to me how Russia or Romania can be stifling bureaucratic (as ME can attest) yet rules will often be bent with hardly
a blink to facilitate a reasonable request.
I had a somewhat similar experience getting married in Vietnam, but we didn't need to be so creative. The rule there is that they'll
take between 15 and 25 business days to process the marriage certificate (no guarantee whether it will be at the low end or the
high end), and once it's ready, you have 3 days to come get it or they'll tear it up and you have to start over again, so you
can't really plan to leave and come back. I could only stay for two weeks, so this was a problem for us. Fortunately, my wife
has a friend who works at the People's Committee office, so she took her boss out for drinks, got him drunk, then talked to him
about our situation. We had our certificate in two days ;-)
That's very interesting. I loved Vietnam, although I only got to visit Saigon; I imagine the less-populated regions to be very
beautiful. It was fascinating to me to see the way they just continually add more and more power lines over the existing ones,
until you have a bundle suspended from the poles that must be two feet in diameter or more. And the terror you feel crossing the
street for the first time, where you just have to step out and keep moving, and let the traffic flow around you. I did find the
begging a little aggressive, though. The food is, I think, my favourite cuisine in the world, although I like Asian in general.
Where and how did you meet your wife?
One thing I try not to think about is what they do if there's a problem with one of the wires and they have to figure out which
one it is to fix it
I lived in Saigon for 3 years, so I know it pretty well. For visiting, I preferred the centre and north, because there's more
history there, but Saigon seems to be the most comfortable place in the country for a Westerner to live long-term. It's also the
best party town in the country
When I was there, I was working as an English teacher for adult classes (or, to be a little more honest, procrastinating on going
to grad school). My now-wife worked part-time at the corner store near where I lived. I went there to buy snacks almost every
day after teaching, so that's how we met. That was about 4 years ago now
Excellent! I think marriage involving different cultures can be a truly wonderful growth experience although I will be the first
to admit there are challenges as well:)
What a lovely story. I'm afraid I was only there for 5 days, so I didn't have too much time to form more than fleeting impressions.
I ate all my meals in restaurants, and never had a bad one, the food was outstanding. I can't think of too many cultures whose
food is more healthy than Asian, with its habitual ratio of a small amount of meat or seafood with a lot of vegetables. I also
had a lot of these wonderful orange fruit drinks (non-alcoholic), very refreshing, but I forget what they were called; I think
they are quite famous, a bit like a mango lassie.
The women were very lovely, everyone (well, every man) says that about Vietnam. I don't remember there being an obtrusive police
or military presence, and the people were friendly and helpful. I was there in 2008 with HMCS REGINA.
The wire problem is an easy fix – they just string a new one.
Thanks for the recounting your experiences. They seem to pretty much mirror Russia's climb fro the abyss. I recall that Putin
was blamed for not placing health care as a priority in the early 2000's. Russia certainly had a multitude of urgent problems
so perhaps there were simply no resources (or the need to first rebuild medical infrastructure) to address health care. But, it
sure looks like the resources have not only be allocated but successfully applied. Having the medical services you described provided
free of charge is remarkable. My family has an exceptional health insurance plan (and very costly) but it does not provide that
level of coverage.
A number of years ago I took my wife to the emergency room as she became very faint; nearly blacking out. The emergency room
response was OK but then they said a CAT scan is needed to make sure that it was nothing more than the flu combined with dehydration.
They did the test and nothing was found. Good. Well, we received a bill for $1,200 with $1,000 for the CAT scan. The insurance
company refused to pay for the CAT scan claiming it was not medically necessary. Well, it was what the doctor ordered so who is
in a better position to determine what is medically necessary – the doctor or a clerk in an office in Florida or whatever.
Doctors are mindful of malpractice suits so would tend to be overly caution at times which was likely the case but the second
guessing by the insurance company was uncalled for.
"... "We live at the time of a certain degrading of European institutions and their external weakening, including by Russia. You can accept it and go with the flow but you can also recognize the fact try to resist it." ..."
Ha, ha!!! The Victim Of The Aggressor Country seldom fails to entertain. Here we have VR Deputy Chairperson Ira Gerashchenko
bossing Europe around , and telling it that the Victim Of The Aggressor Country's parliamentary delegation will continue to
insist on Russia not returning to the Council of Europe. Because, she says, Russia has stolen part of the territory of the VOTAC
which was a gift from Russia in the first place (although she doesn't mention that last part), thereby setting a precedent for
every country which has a province 'liberated' by the west to term it stolen by the west. But that wasn't my favourite part. No;
this is – "We live at the time of a certain degrading of European institutions and their external weakening, including by
Russia. You can accept it and go with the flow but you can also recognize the fact try to resist it."
Beautiful, Ira!! Inspiring!! And how many degraded European leaders are Billionaires who openly own an impressive slate of
businesses and media in their countries, which they
continue to operate and profit from while piously declaring their only interest is the welfare of the country? Which is, by
the bye,
the most corrupt country in Europe ?
How many Prosecutors-General has the VOTAC had since its glorious liberation from the yoke of the Moskali? Yes, you can certainly
teach Yurrup a thing or two about integrity.
It must be embarrassing to be European these days. To be dressed down by the corrupt country you support on handouts because
you are not doing enough to support it. First we had the 'Me' generation. Then we had the 'Me' country.
At some point quantity of duplicity turns into quality. and affect international relations. Economic decline can speed this process
up. The US elite has way too easy life since 1991. And that destroyed the tiny patina of self-restraint that it has during Cold War
with negative (hugely negative) consequences first of all for the US population. Empire building is a costly project even if it supported
by the dominance of neoliberal ideology and technological advances in computers and telecommunication. . The idea of "full spectrum
dominance" was a disaster. But the realization of this came too late and at huge cost for the world and for the US population. Russia
decimated its own elite twice in the last century. In might be the time for the USA to follow the Russia example and do it once in XXI
century. If we thing about Hillary Clinton Jon McCain, Joe Biden, Niki Haley, as member of the US elite it is clear that "something
is rotten in the state of Denmark).
Notable quotes:
"... How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy. ..."
"... Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in 2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous. ..."
"... There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious. ..."
"... The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia, a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West would use subsequently in Libya. ..."
"... Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. ..."
"... Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point explicitly in a February 2008 State Department briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking. ..."
"... This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Espańol's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and, more famously, in Ukraine. ..."
"... One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess. Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate. ..."
"... "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard." ..."
"... Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision and Putin knows it. ..."
"... He's been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove (former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough. ..."
"... U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending the befuddled taxpayers the bill. ..."
"... When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America. ..."
How Washington's chronic deceit -- especially towards Russia -- has sabotaged U.S. foreign policy.
For any country, the foundation of successful diplomacy is a reputation for credibility and reliability. Governments are wary
of concluding agreements with a negotiating partner that violates existing commitments and has a record of duplicity. Recent U.S.
administrations have ignored that principle, and their actions have backfired majorly, damaging American foreign policy in the process.
The consequences of previous deceit are most evident in the ongoing effort to achieve a diplomatic solution to the North Korean
nuclear crisis. During his recent trip to East Asia, President Trump
urged
Kim Jong-un's regime to "come to the negotiating table" and "do the right thing" -- relinquish the country's nuclear weapons and
ballistic missile programs. Presumably, that concession would lead to a lifting (or at least an easing) of international economic
sanctions and a more normal relationship between Pyongyang and the international community.
Unfortunately, North Korean leaders have
abundant reasons to be wary of such U.S. enticements. Trump's transparent attempt to renege on Washington's commitment to the
deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -- which the United States and other major powers signed in
2015 to curb Tehran's nuclear program -- certainly does not increase Pyongyang's incentive to sign a similar agreement. His decision
to decertify Iran's compliance with the JCPOA, even when the United Nations confirms that
Tehran is adhering to its obligations, appears more than a little disingenuous.
North Korea is likely focused on another incident that raises even greater doubts about U.S. credibility. Libyan dictator Muammar
Qaddafi capitulated on the nuclear issue in December of 2003, abandoning his country's nuclear program and reiterating a commitment
to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. In exchange, the United States and its allies lifted economic sanctions and welcomed Libya
back into the community of respectable nations. Barely seven years later, though, Washington and its NATO partners double-crossed
Qaddafi, launching airstrikes and cruise missile attacks to assist rebels in their campaign to overthrow the Libyan strongman. North
Korea and other powers took notice of Qaddafi's fate, making the already difficult task of getting a de-nuclearization agreement
with Pyongyang
nearly
impossible.
The Libya intervention sullied America's reputation in another way. Washington and its NATO allies prevailed on the UN Security
Council to pass a resolution endorsing a military intervention to protect innocent civilians. Russia and China refrained from vetoing
that resolution after Washington's assurances that military action would be limited in scope and solely for humanitarian purposes.
Once the assault began, it quickly became evident that the resolution was merely a fig leaf for another U.S.-led regime-change war.
Beijing, and especially Moscow, understandably felt duped. Secretary of Defense Robert M. Gates
succinctly described Russia's reaction, both short-term and long-term:
The Russians later firmly believed they had been deceived on Libya. They had been persuaded to abstain at the UN on the grounds
that the resolution provided for a humanitarian mission to prevent the slaughter of civilians. Yet as the list of bombing targets
steadily grew, it became obvious that very few targets were off-limits, and that NATO was intent on getting rid of Qaddafi. Convinced
they had been tricked, the Russians would subsequently block any such future resolutions, including against President Bashar al-Assad
in Syria.
The Libya episode was hardly the first time the Russians concluded that U.S. leaders had
cynically
misled them . Moscow asserts that when East Germany unraveled in 1990, both U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and West German
Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher offered verbal assurances that, if Russia accepted a unified Germany within NATO, the alliance
would not expand beyond Germany's eastern border. The official U.S. position that there was nothing in writing affirming such a limitation
is correct -- and the clarity, extent, and duration of any verbal commitment to refrain from enlargement are certainly
matters of
intensecontroversy . But invoking
a "you didn't get it in writing" dodge does not inspire another government's trust.
There seems to be no limit to Washington's desire to crowd Russia. NATO has even added the Baltic republics, which had been
part of the Soviet Union itself. In early 2008, President George W. Bush unsuccessfully
tried to admit Georgia and Ukraine, which
would have engineered yet another alliance move eastward. By that time, Vladimir Putin and other Russian leaders were beyond furious.
The timing of Bush's attempted ploy could scarcely have been worse. It came on the heels of Russia's resentment at another
example of U.S. duplicity. In 1999, Moscow had reluctantly accepted a UN mandate to cover NATO's military intervention against Serbia,
a long-standing Russian client. The alliance airstrikes and subsequent moves to detach and occupy Serbia's restless province of Kosovo
for the ostensible reason of protecting innocent civilians from atrocities was the same "humanitarian" justification that the West
would use subsequently in Libya.
Nine years after the initial Kosovo intervention, the United States adopted an evasive policy move, showing utter contempt
for Russia's wishes and interests in the process. Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear
that such a move would face a certain Russian (and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition
of European Union countries brazenly bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial
move. Not even all EU members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their
own.
Russia's leaders protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing
international precedent. Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique. Under Secretary of State
for Political Affairs R. Nicholas Burns made that point
explicitly in a February 2008 State Department
briefing. Both the illogic and the hubris of that position were breathtaking.
It is painful for any American to admit that the United States has acquired a well-deserved reputation for duplicity in its foreign
policy. But the evidence for that proposition is quite substantial. Indeed, disingenuous U.S. behavior regarding NATO expansion and
the resolution of Kosovo's political status may be the single most important factor for the poisoned bilateral relationship with
Moscow. The U.S. track record of duplicity and betrayal is one reason why prospects for resolving the North Korean nuclear issue
through diplomacy are so bleak.
Actions have consequences, and Washington's reputation for disingenuous behavior has complicated America's own foreign policy
objectives. This is a textbook example of a great power shooting itself in the foot.
Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in defense and foreign policy studies at the Cato Institute, is the author of 10 books,
the contributing editor of 10 books, and the author of more than 700 articles and policy studies on international affairs.
you are dead ON! I have been saying this since IRAQ
fiasco (not one Iraqi onboard on 9/11) we should have invaded egypt and saudi arabia. how the foolish american public(sheep) just
buys the american propaganda is beyond me.. don't blame the Russians one spittle!!
Excellent piece. The US really has destroyed its credibility over the years.
This points Ted Galen Carpenter makes in this piece go a long way toward explaining Russia's destabilizing behavior in recent
years.
One point in particular jumped out at me:
"Kosovo wanted to declare its formal independence from Serbia, but it was clear that such a move would face a certain Russian
(and probable Chinese) veto in the UN Security Council. Washington and an ad-hoc coalition of European Union countries brazenly
bypassed the Council and approved Pristina's independence declaration. It was an extremely controversial move. Not even all EU
members were on board with the policy, since some of them (e.g., Spain) had secessionist problems of their own. Russia's leaders
protested vehemently and warned that the West's unauthorized action established a dangerous, destabilizing international precedent.
Washington rebuffed their complaints, arguing that the Kosovo situation was unique."
This -- in the context of the long history of US and EU deceit and duplicity in their dealings with Russia is why Russia
is supporting Catalan separatism (e.g. RT en Espańol's constant attacks on Spain and promotion of the separatists). The US and
the EU effectively gave Russia permission to do this back in the 1990s. We set a precedent for their actions in Catalonia -- and,
more famously, in Ukraine.
You have made a reasonable case that the US and Europe have not always been reliable, but the expansion of NATO is not one
of them. No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries feared a
Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard.
The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic which Russia invoked with the Medvedev Doctrine in 2008. This is currently
on display in Ukraine. Russia is aggressively denying Ukraine their sovereignty. Who could possibly blame former Soviet Block
countries for hightailing it to NATO during a lull in Russian aggression?
One could scarcely ask for a better summary of why the Cold War seems, sadly, to be reheating as well as why Democratic attempts
to blame it on Russian meddling are a equally sad evasion of their share of bipartisan responsibility for creating this mess.
Reinhold Niebuhr's prayer for, "the courage to change the things I can," is painfully appropriate.
The whole weakness of the author's argument is a classic American one: very few Americans seem to be able to get their heads around
the fact that the Soviet Union ceased to exist 26 years ago! They are still totally locked into their cold war mentality. He thus
unquestioningly accepts Putin's pre-1789 "sphere of influence" theory in which there are "superior" and "inferior" races, with
only the superior races being entitled to have a sovereign state and the inferior races being forced to submit to being ruled
by foreigners. Mr Carpenter really needs to put his cold war mentality aside and come into the 21st century!
Most seriously
of all, Mr Carpenter offers no solution for improving relations between the US and Russia. Saying that past US actions were wrong,
even if true, says nothing about the present and offers nothing for the future. At best, Mr Carpenter's article is empty moralising.
And the unspoken, but perfectly obvious, subtext, namely that the US should "atone for its sins" by capitulating to Putin,
is morally reprehensible and politically unrealistic. Since, by Mr Carpenter's own account, the problem is caused by US wrongdoing,
isn't it for the US to put things right (for example, by getting Putin out of Ukraine) and not simply make a mess in someone else's
country and then run for home with its tail between its legs? Who gave Americans the right to give away other people's countries?
The one problem with your argument if, you are an american as I am, is that Russia is not acting in our names. If the US government,
supposedly a government of, by, and for the people breaks its word, then you and I are foresworn oathbreakers as well because
the government is (theoretically, at least) acting on OUR authority.
Really?! "Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad or backyard."
I think that if you look at a map or a globe, you will find that this is not a belief but a fact. How you could overlook this,
I don't know.
"The idea of a "sphere of influence" is a cold war relic "
If you are going to try and use history to influence opinion, it is best to check your facts. This is a very old concept.What
do you think the Great Game between Imperial Russia and the British Empire in Central Asia was about? For that matter, what we
call the Byzantine Commonwealth was a clearly attempt by the Romaoi to establish a political, cultural, and religious sphere of
influence to support the power of the Empire, much as the United States has been doing over the past several decades.
You could make the case that Iraq too in 2003 is another reason why the Russians and the North Koreans distrust the US.
At this point, it is fairly certain that the Bush Administration knew that Saddam was not building nuclear weapons of mass
destruction, which is what Bush strongly implied in his ramp up to the war.
One other takeaway that the North Koreans mag have from the 2003 Iraq invasion is that the US will lie any way to get what
it wants.
Not saying that Russia or North Korea are perfect. Far from it. But the US needs to take a hard look in the mirror.
Re: craigsummers, "No one forced any eastern European country to join NATO and the EU – decisions that indicate these countries
feared a Russian revival after the collapse of the USSR. Russia always believed that these countries were in their near abroad
or backyard."
Except both here and abroad, the Global Cop Elites in Washington shape the strategy space through propaganda, fear-mongering
and subversion. Moreover, the Eastern European countries are happy to join NATO when it's the American taxpayers who foot a large
percentage of the bill.
Standard U.S. MO: create the threat, inflate the threat, send in the War Machine at massive cost to sustain the threat.
Rather than being broadened, NATO should have been ratcheted back after the fall of the Soviet Union, and the U.S. military
presence in Europe massively reduced. Then normalized relations between Europe and Russia would have been designed and developed
by Europe and Russia. Not the 800 pound Gorilla Global Cop that is good at little more than breaking things. (And perversely,
after flushing TRILLIONS of tax dollars down the toilet, duping Americans to wildly applaud the "Warrior-Heroes" for a job well
done.)
The 2008 war between Georgia and Russia was, per observers at the time, in Russian word and thought directly linked to the Balkan
's precedent.
The subtext here – of nation states, sovereignty, separatism and secessionist movements – is even more relevant with respect
to US-China relationships. Since WW2 and that brief, transient monopoly on nuclear weapons, US foreign policy has eroded the Peace
of Westphalia while attempting to erect an "international order" of convenience on top if it.
Both China and Russia know that nothing will stop the expansionism of US "national interests". In response to the doctrinal
aspirations of the Soviets, the US has committed itself to an ideology that is just a greedy and relentless. In retrospect, it
is hard to tell how many decades ago the Cold War stopped being about opposition to Soviet ideology, and instead became about
"projecting" – in every sense of the word – an equally globalist US ideology.
We are the redcoats now. Now wonder the neocons and neolibs are shouting "Russia!" at every opportunity.
I am amazed how many masochistic conservatives are in USA conservative circles especially in the CATO institute. Mr. T. G. Carpenter,
as is clear from not only this and other articles, is a staunch defender of Yalta and proponent of Yalta 2 after the Cold War
ended. As far as I remember Libya was the hatchet job of the Europeans especially the French and British. B. Obama at first didn't
want to attack Libya but gave in after lobbying by the French, British and the neoliberal/neo-conservative lobby and supporters
of the Arab Spring in the USA. America lost credibility after and only since the conservatives neoliberals and neocons manipulated
USA and the West's foreign politics for thirty plus years. USA is still a democratic country so it is easy to blame everything
on the US. In today's Putin's Russia similar critics of the Russian politics wouldn't be so "easy".
The Central Europe doesn't want Russia's sphere of influence precisely because of centuries of Russian occupation and atrocities
in there especially after WW2, brutal and bloody invasion of Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Cuban Crisis, Afghanistan, Chechnya
etc. Now you have infiltration by Russia of the American electoral process and political system and some conservatives still can't
connect the dots and see what is going on. I wonder why the western conservatives and US in particular are such great supporters
of Russia. If Russia should be allowed to keep her sphere of influence after the Cold War then what was the reason to fight the
Cold War in the first place. Wouldn't it be easier to surrender to Russia right after WW2.
One other observation about Russia that should be made but isn't is that the Russia-phobes can't point to an actual motive for
Russian military aggression. There is no "Putin Plan" for conquest and domination by Russia like in Das Kapital or Hitler's
Mein Kampf . What strategic value would Russia see from overrunning Poland and then having to perpetually suppress 35
million resistors? Or retaking the Baltic states that have only minority ethnic Russian populations?
Putin is a rationally calculating man. He has made his strategic objectives well known. They are economic. He sees Russia
as the great linchpin of the pan-Eurasian One Belt/One Road (OB/OR) initiative proposed by China as well as the AIIB. In that
construct, Europe and East Asia are Russia's customers and bilateral trading partners. Military conquest would wreck that vision
and Putin knows it.
In the gangster movies, a mob boss often says that he hates bloodshed because it's bad for business. That's Putin. He's
been remarkably restrained when egged on by Big Mouth Nikki Haley, Mad Dog Mattis or that other Pentagon nutcase Phillip Breedlove
(former Supreme Commander of NATO) who have gone out of their way to demonize Russia. Unfortunately, with those Pentagon hacks
whispering in Trump's ear, too much war-mongering is never enough.
U.S. foreign policy is an unmitigated disaster. The War Machine Hammer wrecks everything that it touches while sending
the befuddled taxpayers the bill.
"And, Mr. Carpenter, when you have time off from your job as Russian apologist, learn the meaning of "verbal." It's not a synonym
for "oral."
I imagine you thought you were being funny; and you were, just not in the way you foresaw. In fact, verbal is a synonym for
oral; to wit, "spoken rather than written; oral. "a verbal agreement". Synonyms: oral, spoken, stated, said, verbalized, expressed."
Of course anyone who attempts to portray the United States as duplicitous and sneaky (those are synonyms!)is immediately branded
a "Russian apologist". As if there are certain countries which automatically have no rights, and can be assumed to be lying every
time they speak. Except they're not, and the verbal agreement that NATO would not advance further east in exchange for Russian
cooperation has been acknowledged by western principals who were present.
As SteveM implies, NATO's reason for being evaporated with the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact, and was dead as a dodo with
the breakup of the Soviet Union. Everything since has been a rationalization for keeping it going, including regular demonizations
of imaginary enemies until they become real enemies. You can't just 'join NATO' because it's the in-crowd, you know. No, there
are actually criteria, one of which is the premise that your acceptance materially enhances the security of the alliance. Pretty
comical imagining Montenegro in that context, isn't it?
When you meet individual Americans, they are frequently so nice and level-headed that you are perplexed trying to imagine
where their leaders come from. And while we're on that subject, America does not actually have a foreign policy, as such. Its
foreign policy is to bend every other living soul on the planet to the service of America.
"... "President Trump instructed [his generals] in a very open way that the YPG will no longer be given weapons. He openly said
that this absurdity should have ended much earlier ," Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu told reporters after the phone call. ..."
"... The YPG is the Syrian sister organization of the Turkish-Kurdish terror group PKK. Some weapons the U.S. had delivered to the
YPK in Syria to fight the Islamic State have been recovered from PKK fighters in Turkey who were out to kill Turkish security personal.
Despite that, supply for the YPG continued. In total over 3,500 truckloads were provided to it by the U.S. military. Only recently the
YPK received some 120 armored Humvees , mine clearance vehicles and other equipment. ..."
"... The generals in the White House and other parts of the administration were caught flat-footed by the promise Trump has made.
The Washington Post writes : "Initially, the administration's national security team appeared surprised by the Turks' announcement and
uncertain what to say about it. The State Department referred questions to the White House, and hours passed with no confirmation from
the National Security Council." ..."
"... The U.S. military uses the YPG as proxy power in Syria to justify and support its occupation of north-east Syria, The intent
of the occupation is , for now, to press the Syrian government into agreeing to a U.S. controlled "regime change": ..."
"... When in 2014 the U.S. started to use Kurds in Syria as its foot-soldiers, it put the YPG under the mantle of the so called
Syrian Democratic Forces and paid some Syrian Arabs to join and keep up the subterfuge. This helped to counter the Turkish argument
that the U.S. was arming and supporting terrorists. But in May 2017 the U.S. announced to arm the YPG directly without the cover of
the SDF. The alleged purpose was to eliminate the Islamic State from the city of Raqqa. ..."
"... A spokesperson of the SDF, the ethnic Turkman Talaf Silo, recently defected and went over to the Turkish side. The Turkish
government is certainly well informed about the SDF and knows that its political and command structure is dominated by the YPK. The
whole concept is a sham. ..."
"... Sometimes it's hard to see if Trump actually believed what he was saying about foreign policy on the campaign trail -- but
either way it doesn't matter much as he seems incapable of navigating the labyrinth of the Deep State even if he had in independent
thought in his head. I don't expect US weapons to stop making their way into Kurdish hands as they try to extend their mini-Israel-with-oil
foothold in Syria. But it would certainly be a welcome sight if the US left Syria alone for once! ..."
"... Trump personally sent General Flynn to recruit back Erdogan and the Turks right before the election. Flynn wrote his now infamous
editorial "Our ally Turkey is in crisis and needs our support" and published in "The Hill". http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/foreign-policy/305021-our-ally-turkey-is-in-crisis-and-needs-our-support
..."
"... But if you know the role he played for Trump in the campaign and then the post-election role as soon to be NSC advisor, you
will see that Trump was sending him to bring Turkey back into the fold after the coup attempt by CIA, Gulen and Turkey's AF and US State
Dept failed. ..."
"... Trump wanted to prevent the Turkish Stream. It was a huge rival to his LNG strategy. All these are why Flynn did what he did
for Trump. Now Trump has to battle CIA and State, as well as the CENTCOM-Israeli plans for insurgencies in Syria. It's not just the
Kurd issue or the other needs of NATO to hold the bases in Turkey. It's the whole southwest containment of Russian gas and Russian naval
power, and the reality of sharing the Mediterranean as well as MENA with the Bear. ..."
"... Furthermore, I've always been suspicious of Erdogan's 'turn' toward Russia. Many have suspected that the attempted coup was
staged by Erdogan (with CIA help?) so as to enable Erdogan to remain in office. IMO Erdogan joined the 'Assad must go!' effort not just
because he benefited from the oil trade but because he leans toward Sunnis (Surely he was aware of the thinking that: the road to Tehran
runs through Damascus .) ..."
President Trump is attempting to calm down the U.S.
conflict with Turkey . The
military junta in the White House has different
plans. It now attempts to circumvent the decision the president communicated to his Turkish counterpart. The result will be more
Turkish-U.S. acrimony.
Yesterday the Turkish foreign minister surprisingly
announced a phone call
President Trump had held with President Erdogan of Turkey.
United States President Donald Trump and Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan spoke on the phone on Nov. 24 only days after
a Russia-Turkey-Iran summit on Syria, with Ankara saying that Washington has pledged not to send weapons to the People's Protection
Units (YPG) any more .
"President Trump instructed [his generals] in a very open way that the YPG will no longer be given weapons. He openly said
that this absurdity should have ended much earlier ," Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu told reporters after the phone call.
Will be speaking to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey this morning about bringing peace to the mess that I inherited
in the Middle East. I will get it all done, but what a mistake, in lives and dollars (6 trillion), to be there in the first place!
12:04 PM - 24 Nov 2017
During the phone call Trump must have escaped his minders for a moment and promptly tried to make, as announced, peace with Erdogan.
The issue of arming the YPG is really difficult for Turkey to swallow. Ending that would probably make up for the
recent NATO blunder of presenting the founder of modern Turkey Kemal Atatürk and Erdogan himself as enemies.
The YPG is the Syrian sister organization of the Turkish-Kurdish terror group PKK. Some weapons the U.S. had delivered to
the YPK in Syria to fight the Islamic State have been
recovered from PKK fighters in Turkey who were out to kill Turkish security personal. Despite that, supply for the YPG continued.
In total over
3,500 truckloads
were provided to it by the U.S. military. Only recently the YPK received
some 120 armored Humvees ,
mine clearance vehicles and other equipment.
The generals in the White House and other parts of the administration were caught flat-footed by the promise Trump has made.
The Washington Post
writes : "Initially, the administration's national security team appeared surprised by the Turks' announcement and uncertain
what to say about it. The State Department referred questions to the White House, and hours passed with no confirmation from the
National Security Council."
The White House finally released what the Associated Presscalled :
a cryptic statement about the phone call that said Trump had informed the Turk of "pending adjustments to the military support
provided to our partners on the ground in Syria."
Neither a read-out of the call nor the statement AP refers to are currently available on the White House website.
The U.S. military uses the YPG as proxy power in Syria to justify and support
its
occupation of north-east Syria, The intent of the occupation is , for now,
to press the Syrian government into agreeing to a U.S. controlled "regime change":
U.S. officials have said they plan to keep American troops in northern Syria -- and continue working with Kurdish fighters --
to pressure Assad to make concessions during peace talks brokered by the United Nations in Geneva, stalemated for three years
now. "We're not going to just walk away right now," Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said last week.
To solidify its position the U.S. needs to further build up and strengthen its YPG mercenary forces.
When in 2014 the U.S. started to use Kurds in Syria as its foot-soldiers, it put the YPG under the mantle of the so called
Syrian Democratic Forces and paid some Syrian Arabs to join and keep up the subterfuge. This helped to counter the Turkish argument
that the U.S. was arming and supporting terrorists. But in May 2017 the U.S.
announced
to arm the YPG directly without the cover of the SDF. The alleged purpose was to eliminate the Islamic State from the city of Raqqa.
The YPG had been unwilling to fight for the Arab city unless the U.S. would provide it with more money, military supplies and
support. All were provided. The U.S. special forces, who control the YPG fighters, directed an immense amount of aerial and artillery
ammunition against the city. Any potential enemy position was destroyed by large ammunition and intense bombing before the YPG infantry
proceeded. In the end few YPG fighters died in the fight. The Islamic State was let go or eliminated from the city but
so was the city of Raqqa . The intensity
of the bombardment of the medium size city was at times ten
times greater than the bombing in all of Afghanistan. Airwarsreported :
Since June, an estimated 20,000 munitions were fired in support of Coalition operations at Raqqa . Images captured by journalists
in the final days of the assault show a city in ruins
Several thousand civilians were killed in the indiscriminate onslaught.
The Islamic State in Syria and Iraq is defeated. It no longer holds any ground. There is no longer any justification to further
arm and supply the YPG or the dummy organization SDF.
But the generals want to continue to do so to further their larger plans. They are laying grounds to circumvent their president's
promise. The Wall Street Journal seems to be the only outlet to
pick up on the subterfuge:
President Donald Trump's administration is preparing to stop sending weapons directly to Kurdish militants battling Islamic State
in Syria, dealing a political blow to the U.S.'s most reliable ally in the civil war, officials said Friday.
...
The Turkish announcement came as a surprise in Washington, where military and political officials in Mr. Trump's administration
appeared to be caught off-guard. U.S. military officials said they had received no new guidance about supplying weapons to the
Kurdish forces. But they said there were no immediate plans to deliver any new weapons to the group. And the U.S. can continue
to provide the Kurdish forces with arms via the umbrella Syrian militant coalition
The "military officials" talking to the WSJ have found a way to negate Trump's promise. A spokesperson of the SDF, the ethnic
Turkman Talaf Silo, recently
defected and went over to the Turkish side. The Turkish government is certainly well informed about the SDF and knows that its
political and command structure is dominated by the YPK. The whole concept is a sham.
But the U.S. needs the YPG to keep control of north-east Syria. It has to continue to provide whatever the YPG demands, or it
will have to give up its larger scheme against Syria.
The Turkish government will soon find out that the U.S. again tried to pull wool over its eyes. Erdogan will be furious when he
discovers that the U.S. continues to supply war material to the YPG, even when those deliveries are covered up as supplies for the
SDF.
The Turkish government released
a photograph showing
Erdogan and five of his aids taking Trump's phonecall. Such a release and the announcement of the call by the Turkish foreign minister
are very unusual. Erdogan is taking prestige from the call and the public announcement is to make sure that Trump sticks to his promise.
This wide publication will also increase Erdogan's wrath when he finds out that he was again deceived.
Posted by b on November 25, 2017 at 12:14 PM |
Permalink
Sometimes it's hard to see if Trump actually believed what he was saying about foreign policy on the campaign trail -- but
either way it doesn't matter much as he seems incapable of navigating the labyrinth of the Deep State even if he had in independent
thought in his head. I don't expect US weapons to stop making their way into Kurdish hands as they try to extend their mini-Israel-with-oil
foothold in Syria. But it would certainly be a welcome sight if the US left Syria alone for once!
Some
interpret this act on Election eve as a pecuniary fulfillment by Flynn of a lobbying contract (which existed).
But if you know the role he played for Trump in the campaign and then the post-election role as soon to be NSC advisor,
you will see that Trump was sending him to bring Turkey back into the fold after the coup attempt by CIA, Gulen and Turkey's AF
and US State Dept failed.
Flynn understood the crucial need for US and NATO to hold Turkey and prevent the Russians from getting Erdogan as an ally for
Syria and the Black Sea, the Balkans and Mediterranean as well as Iran, Qatar and Eurasia. Look at what has transpired between
Turkey and Russia since. Gas will be flowing through the Turkish Stream and Erdogan conforms to Putin's wishes.
Trump wanted to prevent the Turkish Stream. It was a huge rival to his LNG strategy. All these are why Flynn did what he
did for Trump. Now Trump has to battle CIA and State, as well as the CENTCOM-Israeli plans for insurgencies in Syria. It's not
just the Kurd issue or the other needs of NATO to hold the bases in Turkey. It's the whole southwest containment of Russian gas
and Russian naval power, and the reality of sharing the Mediterranean as well as MENA with the Bear.
Flynn was on it for Trump. And the IC and State want him prosecuted for defying their efforts to replace Erdogan with a stooge
like Gulen. It looks like Mueller is pursuing that against the General.
Its not a problem for US to drop Kurds if they are no longer needed, BUT for now they are essential for US/Israel/Saudi goals,
therefore you can bet 100% Kurds support will continue. Trump's order (he hasn't made it official either) will be easily circumvented.
The real question is, what Resistance will do with the backstabbing Kurds? It wont be easy to make a deal while Kurds
maintain absurd demands and as long as they have full Axis of Terror support.
Go Iraq's way like they reclaimed Kirkuk? US might have sitten out that one, I doubt they'll allow this to happen in Syria
as well, unless they get something in return.
While America's standard duplicity of saying one thing while doing the opposite has been known for decades, they have been able
to play games mainly because of the weakness of the other actors in the region.
The tables have turned now, but America still thinks it holds top dog position.
Wordplay, semantics and legal loopholes wont be tolerated for very long, and when hundreds of US boots return home in body bags
a choice will have to be made - escalate, or run away.
Previous behavior dictates run away, but times have changed.
A cornered enemy is the most dangerous, and the USA has painted itself into a very small corner...
Gee. While reading B's article what got to my mind is: "Turkey is testing the ground". Whatever Trump said to Erdogan on the phone,
it seems to me that the Turks are playing a card to see how the different actors in the US that seems to follow different agendas
will react. If Turkey concludes that the US will continue to back YPG, it's split from the US and will be definitive.
Erdogan is shifting away from US/NATO. He even hinted today that he might talk to Assad. That's huge! I wouldn't be surprised
if Turkey leaves NATO sooner than later. And if it's the case, it will be a major move of a tectonic amplitude.
Trump.. "Will be speaking to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey this morning about bringing peace to the mess that I inherited
in the Middle East. I will get it all done, but what a mistake, in lives and dollars (6 trillion), to be there in the first place!"
Surely by now Erdogan must realise that whatever the US President says and promises will be circumvented by the State Department,
the Pentagon, the 17 US intel agencies (including the CIA and the NSA) and rogue individuals in these and other US government
departments and agencies, and in Congress as well (Insane McCain comes to mind)? Not to mention the fact that the Israeli government
and the pro-Israeli lobby on Capitol Hill exercise huge influence over sections of the US government.
If Erdogan hasn't figured out the schizoid behaviour of the US from past Turkish experience and the recent experience of Turkey's
neighbours (and the Ukraine is one such neighbour), he must not be receiving good information.
Though as Jean says, perhaps Erdogan is giving the US one last chance to demonstrate that it has a coherent and reliable policy
towards the Middle East.
Well, the US policy has been coherent and reliable in the last years. It enhanced local conflicts, supported both sides at
the same time but with different intensities. Whoever wins would be "our man". Old stuff since the Byzantine period. It always
takes a lot of time to prove the single actions that were done. In most cases we learn about it years later. The delay is so big
and unpleasant that quite a number of folks escapes to stupid narratives that explain everything in one step, and therefore nothing.
By the way: is the interest of Kurds to remain under the umbrella of the Syrian state but not be governed by Baath type of Arabic
nationalism illegitimate?
The Kurds (PKK basically) are only necessary to give a "face" to the force the US is trying to align in E. Syria. The "fighting"
against ISIS (if there really was any) is coming to a close. The Chiefs of ISIS have been airlifted to somewhere nearby, and the
foreign mercenary forces sent elsewhere by convoy. ALL the valuable personnel have now become "HTS2" with reversible vests. These,
plus the US special forces are the basis of a new armed anti-Syrian force. (Note that one general let slip that there are 5'000
US forces in E-Syria - not the 500 spoken of in the MSM).
So Trump may well be correct in saying that the Kurds (specifically) will not get any more arms - because they have other demands
and might make peace with the Syrian Government, to keep at least some part of their territorial gains. The ISIS "bretheren" and
foreign mercenaries do not want any peaceful solution because it would mean their elimination.. So The CIA and Pentagon will probably
continue arms supplies to "HTS2" - but not the Kurds.
(ex-ISIS members; Some are from Saudi Arabia, Qatar - the EU and the US, as well as parts of Russia and China. They are not
farming types but will find themselves with some of the best arable land in Syria. Which belonged to Syrian-arabs-christians-Druzes-Yadzis
etc. Who wil want their properties back.)
Note that the US forces at Tanf are deliberately not letting humanitarian help reach the nearby refugee camp. Starvation and
deprivation will force many of the younger members to become US paid terrorists.
thanks b.. i tend to agree with @4 jean and @5 jen... the way i see it, there is either a real disconnect inside the usa where
the president gets to say one thing, but another part of the establishment can do another, or trump has made his last lie to turkey
here and turkey is going to say good bye to it's involvement with the usa in any way that can be trusted.. seems like some kind
of internal usa conflict to me at this point, but maybe it is all smoke and mirrors to continue on with the same charade.. i mostly
think internal usa conflict at this point..
Odd that no one has mentioned the fact the US was behind the attempted coup, where Erdogan was on a plane with two rogue Syrian
jets that stood down rather than execute the kill shot. I have read opinion that the fighter pilots were "lit up" by Russian missile
batteries and informed by radio they would not survive unless they shut down their weapons targeting immediately. This is probably
a favour Putin reminds Erdogan of on a regular basis, whenever Erdo tries to play Sultan. The attempted coup/asassination also
shows Erdogan exactly how much he can trust the US/Zionists at any level.
And Edrogan must also know Syria was once at least partly in the US-orbit, as Syria was the destination for many well-documented
US-ordered rendition/torture cases. It is probable Mossad (or their proxy thugs) killed Assad's father and older brother, so Erdo
knows he's better relying on Putin than Trumpty Dumbdy.
Erdogan is about to make a u-turn toward Syria. He is furious at Saudi Arabia for boycotting its ally Qatar, for talking about
owning Sunni Islam and by the continuous support of Islamists and Sunni Kurds in Syria.
Erdogan is preparing the turkish public opinion to a shift away from the USA-Israeli axis. This may get him many points in the
2019 election if the war in Syria is stopped, most Syrian refugees are back, Turkish companies are involved in the reconstruction
and the YPG neutralized. Erdogan has 1 year and half to make this to happen. For that he badly needs Bashar al Assad and his army
on his side.
Therefore he is evaluating what is the next move and he needs to know where the USA is standing about Turkey and Syria. Until
now the messages from the USA are contradictory yet Erdogan keeps telling his supporters that the USA is plotting against Turkey
and against Islam. Erdogan's reputation also is been threatened by the outcome of Reza Zarrab's trial in the US where the corruption
of his party may be exposed.
That is why Erdogan is making another check about the US intentions before Erdogan he starts the irreversible shift toward
the Iran-Russia (+Qatar and Syria) axis.
missing in this analysis is oil gas ... producers, refiners, slavers, middle crooks, and the LNG crowd :Israel, Fracking, LNG
and wall street... these are the underlying directing forces that will ultimately dictate when the outsiders have had enough fight
against Assad over Assad's oil and Assad's refusal to allow outsiders to install their pipelines. Until then, gangland intelligence
agencies will continue the divide, destroy and conquer strategies sufficient to keep the profits flowing. The politicians cannot
move until the underlying corruptions resolve..
The word 'byzantine' has been used for centuries to describe the intricate and multi-leveled forms of agreement, betrayal, treachery
and achievement among the shifting power brokers in the region. The US alone has three major and another three minor players at
work - often fighting each other. If however, it thinks it can outplay people whose lives are steeped in such a living tradition,
it is sadly deluded and will one day be in for a very rude surprise. Even the Russians have had difficulty navigating that maze.
When confronted with such a 'Gordian knot' of treachery and shifting alliances, Alexander the Great drew his sword and cut
through it with a vision informed by the sage Socrates as taught by Aristotle.
Despite claiming to represent such a western heritage, the US has no such Socratic wisdom, no Aristotelian logic, and no visionary
leadership that could enable it to do what Alexander did. Lacking this, it is destined to get lost in its' own hubris, and be
consumed by our current version of that region's gordian knot.
'...By the way: is the interest of Kurds to remain under the umbrella of the Syrian state but not be governed by Baath type
of Arabic nationalism illegitimate?..'
...showing that he either knows only the crap spouted by wikipedia...or nothing at all about the Baath party...
...which happens to be a socialist and secular party interested in pan-Arab unity...not nationalism...[an obvious oxymoron
to be pan-national and 'nationalist' at the same time...]
Of course there is always a 'better way'...right Hausmaus...?
The Baath socialism under Saddam in Iraq was no good for anyone we recall...especially women, students, sick people etc...
A 'better way' has since been installed and it is working beautifully...all can agree...
Same thing in Libya...where the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya was no good for anyone...
Of course everyone wanted the 'Better Way'...all those doctoral graduates with free education and guaranteed jobs...a standard
of living better than some European countries...etc...
Again...removing the 'socialist' Kadafi has worked out wonderfully...
We now have black African slaves sold in open air markets...where before they did all the broom pushing that was beneath the
dignity of the Libyan Arabs...
...and were quite happy to stay there and have a job and paycheck...instead of now flooding the shores of Italy in anything
that can float...
Oh yes...why would anyone in Syria want to be governed by the socialist Baath party...?
...especially the Kurds...who just over the border in Turkey are not even recognized as humans...never mind speaking their
own language...
I'd really hoped that Donald Trump® would be the "outsider" that both the MSM and he have been insisting he is for the past couple
of years. Other than the Reality TV Show faux conflicts with which the MSM entertains us nightly, I see no such "rogue" Administration.
This say one thing, and do the other has been US foreign policy forever.
Recall, for instance that on February 21, 2014, Obama's State Department issued a statement hailing Ukrainian President Yanukovych
for signing an agreement with the "pro-democracy Maidan Protest" leaders in which he acquiesced to all of their demands.
Then, on February 22, 2014, the US State Department cheered the "peaceful and Constitutional" coup after neo-nazis stormed
the Parliament.
A few months later, Secretary of State Kerry hailed the Minsk Treaty to end the war in Ukraine. Later that day, Vickie Nuland
said there was no way her Ukies would stop shelling civilians, and sure enough they didn't (until they'd been on the retreat for
weeks, and came whimpering back to the negotiations table).
A couple years later, Kerry announced that the US and Russia would coordinate aerial assaults in Syria. The next day, "Defense"
Secretary Carter said, "no way," and within a week or so, we "accidentally" bombed Syrian forces at Deir ez Zoir for over an hour.
From my perspective, they keep us chasing the next squirrel, while bickering amongst each other about each squirrel. But the
wolves are still devouring the lambs, with only the Bear preventing a complete extinction.
What we know with at least some level of confidence...
Dump is not the 'decider'...the junta is...he's just a cardboard cutout sitting behind the oval office desk...
And he's got no one to blame but himself...he came in talking a big game about cleaning house and got himself cleaned out of
being an actual president...
This was inevitable from the moment he caved on Flynn...the only person he didn't need to vet with the senate...and a position
that wields a lot of power...
This was his undoing on many levels...not only because he faced a hostile deep state and even his own party in congress with
no one by his side [other than Flynn]...
...but because it showed that he had no balls and would not stand by his man...
This is not the stuff leaders are made of...
The same BS we see with Turkey is playing out with Russia on the Ukraine issue...
Now the junta and their enablers in congress want to start sending offensive arms to Ukraine...Dump and his platitudes to Putin...no
matter how much he may mean it...mean nothing...he's not in charge...
I think that Jean @4 has the best take on this: Erdoğan went very public on Trump's "promise" in a classic put-up-or-shut-up challenge
to the USA.
Either the word of a POTUS means something or it doesn't, and if it doesn't then Turkey is going to join Russia in concluding
that the USA as simply not-agreement-capable.
Erdoğan will then say "enough!!!", give the USA the two-finger-salute, and then take Turkey out of NATO.
And the best thing about it will be that McMaster, Kelly and Mathis will be so obsessed with playing their petty little games
that they won't see it coming.
It's hard to tell what Erdoğan is doing or intending other than that he is navigating something - objective TBD. It'll be interesting
to see if he constrains the use of Incirlik airbase should the US keep arming the YPG/PKK forces. Airpower is the enabler (sole
enabler, IMO) of the/any Kurdish overreach inside Syria. Seems like Erdoğan holds the ace card in this muddle but has yet to play
it.
Seems like Turkey has more than one card to play. A commenter on another site mentioned recently that the US really doesn't
want Erdogan to have that S-400 system from Russia. Got me thinking, could Russia have deliberately loaded Erdogan's hand with
that additional card to help him negotiate with the US?
Turkey may well leave NATO and as others have pointed out, this would be a game changer far beyond the matter of the US's illegal
presence in NE Syria. This possibility brings immense existential gravitas to Erdogan's position right now. He could ask
for many concessions at this point, not to leave. And from the Eurasian point of view, it doesn't matter if he leaves or stays,
while from the western view, it matters greatly.
Would the US give up Syria, in order to keep Turkey in NATO? It's a western dichotomy, not one that affects Asia. It would
be simple to throw S-400 at that dynamic to watch it squirm.
The plays the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the King.
- Hamlet
As the endgame plays out, Erdogan's conscience may be revealed.
b has made the point that the partition that US-led proxy forces have carved out is unsustainable. But it would be sustainable
if Erdogan can be convinced to allow trade via Turkey.
For that reason, I thought Trump's ceasing direct military aid to the Kurds made sense as it provided Erdogan with an excuse
to allow land routes for trade/supply. Erdogan can argue that he wants to encourage such good behavior and doesn't want to make
US an enemy (Turkey is still a NATO country).
Furthermore, I've always been suspicious of Erdogan's 'turn' toward Russia. Many have suspected that the attempted coup
was staged by Erdogan (with CIA help?) so as to enable Erdogan to remain in office. IMO Erdogan joined the 'Assad must go!' effort
not just because he benefited from the oil trade but because he leans toward Sunnis (Surely he was aware of the thinking that:
the road to Tehran runs through Damascus .)
Hasn't Erdogan's vehement anti-Kurdish stance done R+6 a disservice? It seems to me that it has helped USA to convince
Kurds to fight for them and has also been a convenient excuse for Erdogan to hold onto Idlib where al Queda forces have refuge.
If Erdogan was really soooo angry with Washington, and soooo dependent on Moscow, then why not relax his anti-Kurdish
stance so as to bring Kurds back into the Syrian orbit?
Jackrabbit @20:
Erdogan may feel that if he relaxed his stance against the Syrian Kurds, it could embolden Turkish Kurds to further pursue their
agenda. It would also make him appear weak towards his supporters.
Erdogan is NOT going to leave NATO. Why should he? It would be the stupidest chess move ever? He's in the club and they can't
kick him out. He can cause all the trouble he wants and hobble that huge machine that is the western alliance. He will not get
EU membership, but he has his NATO ID CARD and that ain't bad. Erdo now knows that the poor bastard Trumps is WORTHLESS that he
is a toothless executive in name only. This is a wake up call, if I were Erdo, I would be very afraid of the USA and it's Syria,
MENA policy. It is being run by LUNATICS and is a slow moving train wreak. So for now, Erdo must be looking at Moscow, admiring
Putin for this is a man who has his shit together and truly knows how to run a country. Maybe even a sense of admiration and more
respect for Putin is even present. If I were Erdo, I'd double down in my support for Russia's Syria policy.
You do not get it:
„...which happens to be a socialist and secular party interested in pan-Arab unity...not nationalism..."
According to this ideology the coherence of a society comes from where? And who is excluded if one applies it?
So your contribution is just a rant using rancidic rhetoric tools. But I will not call you „flunkerbandit". My advice is to move
to this area and have a look into such a society from a more close position. Armchair type of vocal leadership does not help.
@23 "Erdogan is NOT going to leave NATO. Why should he?"
I guess one possible reason would be this: as long as Turkey remains in NATO then he is obliged to allow a US military presence
in his country, and that's just asking for another attempt at a military coup.
After all, wasn't Incirlik airbase a hotbed of coup-plotters during the last coup attempt?
"when the Syrian settlement is achieved, Syria's democratic forces will join the Syrian army." "When the Syrian state stabilizes, we can say that the Americans did what they said, then withdraw as they did in Iraq and
set a date for their departure and leave."
Nothing new here, nothing good either. Kurds so far are keeping up their demands of de-facto independence under fig-leaf of
"we are part of federalised Syria" with weak central government and autonomous Kurds. Thats how US plan to castrate Syria. Russia
offered cultural autonomy, Kurds rejected.
As for Americans "withdrawing" willfully, it never happened. Iraq had to kick them out, and then US used ISIS and Kurds to
get back in.
As for Syria's stabilization part, US is doing everything in its power to prevent it.
@Yeah Right #26
Turkey is not obliged to keep foreign troops in their country to remain in NATO. De Gaulle invited the US to leave France in 1967
but is still a member of NATO
@31 France actually withdrew from NATO in 1966. It remained "committed" to the collective defence of western Europe, without being,
you know, "committed" to it.
So, yeah, France kicked all the foreign troops out of France in 1967, precisely because its withdrawal from NATO's Integrated
Military Command meant that the French were no longer under any obligation to allow NATO troops on its soil.
But France had to formally withdraw from that Command first, and the reason that de Gaulle gave for withdrawing were exactly
that: remaining meant ceding sovereignty to a supra-national organization i.e. NATO Integrated Military Command.
That France retained "membership" of NATO's political organizations even after that withdrawal was little more than a fig-leaf.
After all, NATO's purpose isn't "political", it is "military".
"The Decider" is Trump's apparent self image. He can't be enjoying the Presidency and the controls exerted upon him by others
among the "Deep State" (whom I suppose have effectively cowed him into behaving via serious threats).
If he already had money and power, as it appears that he had, he gained little by taking the crown. He has less power because
he is now controlled by a number of forces (CIA, NSA, Media, MIC and etc.) as he remains under constant assault by his natural
opposition.
Big mistake dumping Flynn.
Now you take another kind of asshole in the person of Obama - a guy that had nothing - you have a malleable character who enjoys
the pomp and circumstance. Really didn't need any persuading to do anything required of him.
Here is a recent report from the Turkish Prime Minister supporting Trump's "lie" about ending support for the Kurds....what will
history show occured?
ISTANBUL, Nov. 26 (Xinhua) -- Turkish Prime Minister Binali Yildirim said on Sunday that his country is expecting the United
States to end its partnership with the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military wing, the People's Protection
Units (YPG).
"Since the very beginning, we have said that it is wrong for the U.S. to partner with PKK's cousin PYD and YPG in the fight
against Daesh (Islamic State) terrorist group," Yildirim told the press in Istanbul prior to his departure for Britain.
Ankara sees the Kurdish groups as an offshoot of the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) fighting against the Turkish government
for over 30 years, while Washington regards them as a reliable ground force against the Islamic State (IS), also known as Daesh.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday spoke to his Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan over the phone, pledging not to
provide weapons to the YPG any more, an irritant that has hurt bilateral ties, according to the Turkish side.
Yildirim noted that Washington has described it as an obligation rather than an option to support the Kurdish groups on the
ground. "But since Daesh (IS) is now eliminated then this obligation has disappeared," he added.
It would be nice if Erdogan when withdrawing from NATO (Assuming he does this in the next 12-18 months) would say something like.
"We really like President Trump - and we trust his word implicitly. The problem is, although we trust his word, we know
he is not in control so his word is useless and best ignored. Though of course - we still trust he means well."
That would be a nice backhander to hear from Erdopig.
Speculation about Turkey leaving NATO seems farfetched. Turkey has NATO over a barrel. It has been a member for decades and what
would it gain by leaving? Nothing. By staying it continues to influence and needle at the same time. Turkey will only leave when
NATO throws it out, which isn't going to happen.
"... In a CNN opinion piece written by Hossein Derakhshan and Claire Wardle, who are affiliated with the globalist Council of Europe, the authors argue that the term "fake news" has "become meaningless" and lost its power because politicians (primarily Donald Trump) have hijacked it as a way to "undermine" the media establishment. ..."
"... The authors decry the fact that many people now believe the mainstream media peddles "fabricated stories" and that information monopolies are being challenged by the ability for "anyone in the world" to have a platform. ..."
"... Of course, the real reason media elites want to clamp down on the term "fake news" is because its original intention, to smear and discredit opponents of Hillary Clinton, right of center media outlets, and people who distrust the mainstream media, has completely backfired. ..."
"... This was illustrated yet again by Donald Trump's tweet earlier today when he suggested that a "fake news trophy" should be awarded to the network that has been responsible for the most inaccurate reporting. ..."
"... The Podesta emails also revealed how mainstream journalists were completely in bed with the Clinton campaign and even ran stories by them before publication. ..."
"... The "fake news" narrative has completely backfired on the political establishment and the media because it has acted as a boomerang, showing the mainstream media to be the most consistently dishonest entity of all. ..."
"... Is it any wonder therefore that the political class is now so keen to retire the term altogether? ..."
CNN is now pushing an effort to "ban the term fake news" after the slogan became synonymous
with CNN itself thanks to President Donald Trump.
In a
CNN opinion piece written by Hossein Derakhshan and Claire Wardle, who are affiliated with
the globalist Council of Europe, the authors argue that the term "fake news" has "become
meaningless" and lost its power because politicians (primarily Donald Trump) have hijacked it
as a way to "undermine" the media establishment.
The authors decry the fact that many people now believe the mainstream media peddles
"fabricated stories" and that information monopolies are being challenged by the ability for
"anyone in the world" to have a platform.
Remember when the mainstream media & the Hillary campaign invented the term "fake news"
in an effort to discredit alternative & right of center media outlets?
Complaining that "less powerful agents can harm large institutions or established
individuals," Derakhshan and Wardle warn that trust in institutions is declining and that only
through intervention at the level of "public education" (ie indoctrination) can this be
reversed.
Of course, the real reason media elites want to clamp down on the term "fake news" is
because its original intention, to smear and discredit opponents of Hillary Clinton, right of
center media outlets, and people who distrust the mainstream media, has completely
backfired.
This was illustrated yet again by Donald Trump's tweet earlier today when he suggested that
a "fake news trophy" should be awarded to the network that has been responsible for the most
inaccurate reporting.
We should have a contest as to which of the Networks, plus CNN and not including Fox, is the
most dishonest, corrupt and/or distorted in its political coverage of your favorite President
(me). They are all bad. Winner to receive the FAKE NEWS TROPHY!
"Fake news" was one of many excuses trotted out after November last year to push the
narrative that President Trump's election was somehow illegitimate.
In reality, a major Stanford University study found
that "even the most widely circulated fake news stories were seen by only a small fraction of
Americans," and that the most widely believed fake news stories were those that benefited
Hillary Clinton.
Fake news had virtually no impact on the election, but the establishment media weaponized
the term as part of an agenda to silence and censor voices of dissent, including media
platforms, that had opposed Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign.
In addition, mainstream media news coverage in the weeks leading up to the election was 91%
negative towards Trump, according to a
study by the Media Research Center.
The
Podesta emails also revealed how mainstream journalists were completely in bed with the
Clinton campaign and even ran stories by them before publication.
The "fake news" narrative has completely backfired on the political establishment and the
media because it has acted as a boomerang, showing the mainstream media to be the most
consistently dishonest entity of all.
Is it any wonder therefore that the political class is now so keen to retire the term
altogether?
"... By Samuel A. Greene, Reader in Russian Politics and Director of the Russia Institute at King's College London. Originally published at openDemocracy ..."
"... Failed utopias lead to the death of idealism, and the likes of Putin and Trump are symbols of this process. As we watch Russia struggle with history, the US and UK cannot afford to pretend that this history doesn't affect us too. ..."
"... This text is adapted from a keynote address delivered at the British International Studies Association Conference on "1917 in 2017: Russia's Unfinished Revolution" on 17 November 2017, in London. ..."
"... The three 'big' revolutions of the Twentieth Century provided some concrete, material benefits to the 'masses' of their regions. ..."
"... "the three 'big' revolutions" ..."
"... Only this fear was enough to persuade elites to set up welfare states and planned economies, and so guarantee full employment. ..."
By Samuel A. Greene, Reader in Russian Politics and Director of the Russia Institute at
King's College London. Originally published at openDemocracy
Failed utopias lead to the death of idealism, and the likes of Putin and Trump are
symbols of this process. As we watch Russia struggle with history, the US and UK cannot afford
to pretend that this history doesn't affect us too.
Revolutions – and their centenaries – are best dealt with in the first person.
That, of course, creates a certain awkwardness for an academic, whose stock in trade is meant
to be distance from the subject of study. But nothing forces a reckoning with one's place in
the order of things quite like a revolution, and that is true of academics even 100 years after
the fact. Witness, for example, the never-ending debates about what a revolution even is.
Slipping into the first person – reckoning with my place in the order of things
– allows me to admit another awkwardness that has arisen in this centenary season: That
of an American, living in the UK, who is expected by virtue of his profession to pronounce on
the "Russian" revolution. If any combination of subject, audience and personal heritage could
make me feel like more of an imposter, I don't know what it is.
To lessen that awkwardness, I have told myself – and a handful of audiences –
that October 1917 was not just a Russian revolution. February had already done away with
monarchical absolutism and the doorway to modernity – at least in the Euro-centric
conception that dominated the age – was open. But Bolshevism, as the name would suggest,
was meant to be about more than that: about more than Russia, perhaps about more than
modernity.
The Bolsheviks looked at western modernity and found it lacking – in need of
transformation. However misbegotten, and without regard to its eventual mutations, the
communist ideal – what Yuri Slezkine has described as a millenarian, utopian vision
for the fall of Babylon and the establishment of Justice – was to its adherents a
universalist idea. It was a pathway to universal justice, to global justice, and it emerged
onto the scene just as its brother, the Wilsonian democratic ideal, strode forth from America.
Both of these universalist projects shared a progenitor, in the Scottish Enlightenment of Hume,
Ferguson and Smith.
Russia and America: Mirroring Ambition, Mirroring Failure
Each vision of Utopia presented an insurmountable challenge to the other.
Woodrow Wilson's conceit was that paradise on Earth was already extant, in the New World and
pockets of the Old, and, provided that the passions of humanity could be tamed, this paradise
would eventually bathe the world in a gently rising tide of democracy. Lenin's conceit was a
hotter one, an understanding of the world so structurally unjust that only the fire of
revolutionary uprising – the passions of humanity unleashed – could clear away the
suffocating underbrush and allow for new growth. Russia and America have spent the last 100
years as mirrors held up to one another, revealing in excruciating detail both the loftiness of
our ambitions and our frequent failures to live up to them. Indeed, our almost ubiquitous
failures to live up to them. Russia and America – and perhaps the west more broadly
– have constructed their contemporary selves with clear and abiding reference to one
another: the American way was American because it was the rejection of the Soviet way, and vice
versa.
A Works Progress Administration poster. Source: Public domain.
That reflexive, reflective modernity continues today. It outlasted the death of ideological
fervour in both Moscow and Washington. It was the New Deal and the rise of the western welfare
state – propelled by the example of state socialism and the fear of contagious ideology
– that fueled Khrushchev's Thaw. It was Yuri Gagarin who put Neil Armstrong on the moon.
It was in the hall of mirrors that we call the Cold War that Martin Luther King Jr and Andrei
Sakharov came into focus.
Utopia, of course, died long before the Soviet Union, but it is threatening to drown
idealism in its wake. It is easy to forget, but in 1991 – in that moment of genuine
euphoria – many Americans and Russians alike believed in a common future.
It took Americans longer than Russians to realize that this dream – that Russians
would somehow become "like us" (whatever that might mean), the dream of the end of history
– would not come true. Russians began to see in their American mirror something
unattainable, but also something undesirable, and retreated from universalism into
particularism, an insistence on a special path, a uniquely Russian civilization.
And Americans have come to see in the Russian mirror an image of everything we so
desperately fear becoming – and that image is getting sharper by the day. We fear, in
truth, not that Trump was installed by Putin, but that in electing Trump we ourselves have
elected our own Putin – a leader who allows us to be our basest self and absolves us of
guilt. If poet Fyodor Tyutchev (of "You cannot understand Russia with your mind " fame) has
replaced Lenin in the Russian discourse, Sarah Palin has replaced Wilson in the American.
As Russia Grapples With Its History, Are We Doing Any Better?
It has become commonplace to note
how few conversations are happening in the Russian public space about 1917. The current
masters of the Kremlin have hewn to a story of uninterrupted Russian power, from the princes of
Kyiv, through Ivan the Terrible's Muscovy and the Romanovs, into the Soviet era and beyond,
with Putin the rightful heir of all of these disparate lineages. It is a neat trick, made
possible only by the replacement of universalism with particularism. The only legitimating idea
that connects the 19th, 20th and 21st-Century constructions of Russian power into a single arc
is that of Russia itself.
Having noted that, it's worth turning the same question back on ourselves: If Russia is
struggling to come to grips with the transformation caused by 1917, are we doing any
better?
Rally marking the 100th anniversary of the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in St Petersburg.
(c) NurPhoto/SIPA USA/PA Images. All rights reserved.
We call it the Russian revolution – or the Bolshevik revolution, which, if anything,
makes it sound even more foreign – and we hold lectures and exhibitions. Excellent
lectures and engrossing exhibitions. The Royal Academy. The Tate Modern. The British Library.
Even King's College London. John Reed is serialised on BBC Radio 4, with Russian workers
speaking in cockney and Stalin sporting a spectacular Scottish brogue. We have dozens and
dozens of opportunities to reflect – on Russia. And they're fascinating. And we're
fascinated. But they miss the point.
How did 1917 change us? I don't mean the fate of capitalism and socialism in the west,
though that matters, too. I mean the west itself. To a very great extent, the west as we know
it was born in 1917 in Petrograd. And 100 years later, it is still in Russia's mirror that we
see ourselves most clearly. If we care to look.
Revolutions generally begin with a mixture of concrete grievance and an abstract sense of
justice – while the most powerful revolutions seem to involve an appeal to a
transcendent, universal justice, to values that accrue to us all. Revolution in its purest
sense thus might be thought of as the negation of identity and the rejection of
particularism.
Revolutions are also about imagination – a simultaneous re-imagination of the future
and the past, transforming our past into an abstraction of injustice to be rejected, and
transforming the future into its opposite. In the process, we universalize our particularism
– we ascribe to all of humanity our own grievances and our own imaginations.
But revolutions are also mobilisational processes, and sociology tells us that
mobilisational processes seek solidarity by reinforcing dichotomies – between just and
unjust, past and future, us and them.
The first thing we need to understand, then, was that 1917 threw all of us into a process of
self-definition by reference to different imagined utopias. Competing and incompatible claims
to universality – stalemated first by accidents of history and then by the design of
Mutually Assured Destruction – decay into competitive claims of exceptional
particularism, with the caveat that each particular exceptionalism is grounded in an exclusive
universality.
Let me repeat that. Over the course of the 20th Century, Russia's and America's competing
and incompatible claims to represent a universal vision decayed into competitive claims of
exceptional particularism. And each of these particularistic formulations of exceptionalism was
grounded in a mutually exclusive vision of universality.
An Impossible Future, and a Past That Never Existed
Because we "won" the Cold War – because our system of political and economic
governance survived and the Soviet Union's did not – we might forget that we have walked
the same path and arrived at the same destination.
The Soviet Union began by attempting to build a future that could not exist: universal
prosperity could not be planned. As the idea of that shining future faded, Russia sought
shelter in a past that never existed, a myth of pan-Slavic virtue, harmony and plenty. The
argument that justifies Crimea, that justifies Donbas, is not an argument – it is the
absence of an argument. It is the argument that arguments do not matter. That ideas do not
matter. That what matters, is where we are, and right now, we are here.
But the America of the NRA and Black Lives Matter – or the Britain of UKIP and
Grenfell Tower – are not the lands we told the Soviets we were building. They are not the
lands we told ourselves we were building. And we, too, retreat from future into past. We elect
governments on the basis that government is the problem, not the solution. We cleave to leaders
who base their politics in the absence of policy. And we, too, fight wars because we can.
I'm in danger of sounding like an activist, rather than an academic -- but I have tried,
briefly, to make two arguments. One is that the process that has led to the politics we observe
and dislike in Russia is not distinct from the process that has led to the politics we observe
and dislike in the west. But the second is that we need to have arguments. As social
scientists, what we want from this is to be provoked into finding our own new universalities,
our generalizable conclusions drawn from methodical observation and rigorous analysis.
For those of us who study politics, these past few years have also been a time of retreat
into particularism – into methodological exceptionalism, if you will. Rational choice.
Realism. Constructivism. As a discipline, whatever your preferences, your foundations have been
shaken. The politicians tell us our nations have had enough of experts, and we are duly, maybe
ritually indignant – but in our quieter moments, we, too, wonder about our usefulness.
The evisceration of idealism that enables both Putin and Trump afflicts us, too.
Maybe the time for quiet moments has passed. Maybe we can raise the volume a bit. Maybe we
can turn the tide back towards the universal, towards understanding something about the other
in ourselves and the self in our others. Wouldn't that be revolutionary?
This text is adapted from a keynote address delivered at the British International
Studies Association Conference on "1917 in 2017: Russia's Unfinished Revolution" on 17 November
2017, in London.
Germany was tempted to attack USSR, by Western investments to that end. Once it was
obvious that their attack was failing, Japan was squeezed into war, allowing Germany to call
for rescue by declaring war on USA!
Russia won. USA won. Japan was taught to obey .. except they kept Plutonium.
.."western investments" (and more) documented here: David talbot, "The Devil's Chessboard:
Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret Government"
"Dulles' decade as the director of the CIA (and prior, WWII OSS) – which he used to
further his public and private agendas – were dark times in American politics. Calling
himself "the secretary of state of unfriendly countries", Dulles saw himself as above the
elected law, manipulating and subverting American presidents in the pursuit of his personal
interests and those of the wealthy elite he counted as his friends and clients –
colluding with Nazi-controlled cartels, German war criminals, and Mafiosi in the process.
Targeting foreign leaders for assassination and overthrowing nationalist governments not in
line with his political aims, Dulles employed those same tactics to further his goals at
home.."
Germany was tempted to attack USSR, by Western investments to that end.
Does the book about Allen Dulles explain what those Western investments were prior to
1941? Dulles's period in the OSS and the CIA could not have influenced Germany's past
actions. I apologize if this is answered in the Youtube video; I didn't have time to watch
it.
Sir-excellent detailed perceptions; you will need read Talbot's book, wherein you will
find Dulles working with Wall Street banks – investors – investments, Germany,
over decades. (and so much more):
"The Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's Secret
Government"
The video is only one of Talbot, but perhaps best summation he is also available on
youtube on "Concord book club" discussion with readers of his book.
As Sullivan & Cromwell private attorneys, the Dulles brothers saw to it that parent
cross holding companies of their foreign clients all shared copy rights, patents and
intellectual property prior to hostilities including particularly Italian and German
corporations. It was the individuals controlling these international share holdings the
brothers most identified with, Nazis and Facists specifically. Krupp and IGFarben were two of
JF Dulles top prewar clients.
When Truman found out, much latter, he considered it treason.
I would add to this by mentioning Lamberts' Mantra; concrete and material benefits for
all.
The three 'big' revolutions of the Twentieth Century provided some concrete, material
benefits to the 'masses' of their regions. Russia in 1917 promised and produced an economy,
no matter how shaky, that was seen to be for the betterment of the people. Until Stalin
reverted to Oriental Despotism as a working plan, the USSR built roads, waterworks, sewers
etc. The people saw their revolution at work for them. Likewise, in Germany, Hitler put the
people to work, building autobahns etc. Harnessing the humiliation of the nation to the
building of a German ideal State was Hitlers genius. If he had stopped there, he would be
remembered today as a 'great leader.' In America, Franklin Roosevelt used the power of the
State to put people to work, building roads, dams, forests etc. There are still remnants of
the New Deal projects around. I know of two WPA Federal Art Project murals in ex Post Office
facilities here Down South. Roosevelt arguably saved Capitalism from itself, a revolutionary
outcome in and of itself.
No one of sane mind denies that history can run backward. However, the people have tasted the
forbidden fruit of material security. Nothing gets people more riled up than realizing that
something that they have enjoyed as a 'usual thing' is being taken away.
An anecdote from work to the point. Our regional manager is an ambitious person. Fair enough
that, but the workers are viewed as expendable 'things' to be used. People are not as stupid
as the average "overlord" class functionary seems to think. We know the 'game,' so, when this
manager came through the store a few weeks ago, with a gaggle of 'friends' and assorted
sycophants en train, she was heard by several floor workers to be bragging to her group about
her recent vacation to the Virgin Islands. This did not go down well with the workforce.
Indirectly, this manager has reduced enthusiasm for the work, and depressed efficiency in the
store. All to make herself look good to her perceived peers. Despite the starvation wages, is
it any wonder turnover is so high here?
Rant In Peace.
Just a thought for Thanksgiving: instead of pardoning a turkey, why not pardon school debts?
That would be revolutionary thinking.
er.. Re Russian revolution for betterment of the people – well, some.
Ukrainians died in their millions in the enforced famine (which is still a source of much
angst and anger between Ukraine and Russia, and some of the real roots of the east-Ukraine
separatist movement).
In fact, the Russian economy was going downhill after the revolution until Lenin (yes,
Lenin. If he was anything, he was a pragmatist, which is interesting trait he shared with
Stalin, and I think FDR too) moved in 1921 (at which time the USSR's economy was in
horrendous state with large anti party demonstrations in Moscow, famine, Kronstand rebellion
etc.) to the "New Economic Policy" – which was classified as "state capitalism", and
include a form of "free market", and even was looking to attract foreign investment!
Sort of not dissimilar to the current China experiment (Deng Xiaoping acknowledged it as
"the most correct model of socialism"). It even had it's own noveau riche similarly to the NR
in China these days (which was one of its political problems with the hardcore party)
The interesting bit is that Stalin supported this vs Trotsky, but once he took power and
got rid of him, he actually reverted to what Trotsky was advocating and thus NEP ended in
1929.
As I understand it, Stalin didn't quite go in for full-on Trotskyism. For one thing, he
left the trade unions intact. And the collective farms once implemented were part of a
quasi-market system, rather than just straightforwardly requisitioning grain at gunpoint.
Russia/USSR looking to attract FDI pre-91?? Are you sure? Wasn't it the perpetually
inebriated Boris Yeltsin that opened up Russia to free market capitalism on the advice of US
economic reform consultants? And, as Michael Hudson has alluded to here, as a sovereign
currency issuer, Russia funded its domestic expenditure obligations without ever needing to
tap international financial markets pre-91 (and only the arms race put a strain on this
capability). I'm struggling to see why they would seek to attract FDI (which, in all
likelihood would have had to come from the adversarial west). Maybe you can provide some
clarity??
Last concession was rolled back in 1930. The concessions were specific to the NEP
(1921-1929), and were one of the four pillars of NEP.
See for example:
Кунин В.
"Концессионная
политика в
Советской
России (1923 -- 1929 гг.)
Вестник
Московского
ун-та. Сер. 6.
Экономика. 1993
Translation of the title is "Concessions politics in Soviet Russia (1923-1929) .
which includes para like (bolding mine):
"The New Economic Policy means substituting a tax for the requisitioning of food; it means
reverting to capitalism to a considerable extent -- to what extent we do not know.
Concessions to foreign capitalists (true, only very few have been accepted, especially when
compared with the number we have offered) and leasing enterprises to private capitalists
definitely mean restoring capitalism, and this is part and parcel of the New Economic Policy
; for the abolition of the surplus-food appropriation system means allowing the peasants to
trade freely in their surplus agricultural produce, in whatever is left over after the tax is
collected -- and the tax~ takes only a small share of that produce. The peasants constitute a
huge section of our population and of our entire economy, and that is why capitalism must
grow out of this soil of free trading."
I see, so although capitalism was at odds with their ideology, the demographics of the
population made partially reverting to it somewhat unavoidable. And, as an aside, I suppose a
tax made sense in place of surplus food appropriation (one can imagine this becoming a
logistical and enforcement nightmare in the long run). Thanks for your clarification.
The appropriations were really hated – it wasn't a tax (percentage of what you
grow/get), it was really appropriation – all taken, and then redistributed. Which was
of course rife with corruption, special interests etc. etc.
There were literally hundreds of peasants uprising in 1920/1921 in Soviet Russia because
of that, and it got as far that peasants just simply refused to plant anything as a form of
protest.
As in it wasn't "surplus food" – it was all of production taken, and if you tried to
hide anything, you run a (very high) risk of being shot as a saboteur.
This is even more interesting now that I think of it. If the last concessions hadn't been
rolled back, the next 6 decades (1930-91) of the Soviet communist project might have looked
very different to how things actually played out (possibly weakened and dismantled from
within by this state sanctioned infiltration by foreign capitalists, kinda like how NGOs do
it nowadays). I suppose the radical and increasingly isolationist outlook that underpinned
the rolling back of the concessions "saved" the Soviet project, allowing it survive for the
next 60 years.
(at which time the USSR's economy was in horrendous state with large anti party
demonstrations in Moscow, famine, Kronstand rebellion etc.) to the "New Economic Policy"
– which was classified as "state capitalism", and include a form of "free market",
and even was looking to attract foreign investment!
You make it sound as though what the USSR was experiencing up until the NEP was a freely
contrived "experiment" in communism that was failing and had to be replaced with "what
works." You leave out the impact of Russia's disastrous involvement in WWI, which had already
produced severe dislocations and shortages in the economy, and then the following disaster of
the civil war, with millions more dead, the flight of many of the technicians of the
capitalist economy and their replacement by untrained workers, forced grain requisitions that
contributed to a breakdown of the worker-peasant alliance, and the distorting effects of the
eventually necessary Red Terror. And then, of course there was foreign intervention. These
trials surrounding an attempt to establish a novel economic order were something capitalism,
lurching from symbiosis with feudal society to rampant expropriations once it got in the
saddle, never faced. They shouldn't be treated as a kind of background noise that we can
screen out as we assess the workings of an economic model. They directly impacted on its
constituent parts.
I said that the economy in 1921 was in shambles, which is fact (and you acknowledge
it).
I did not say, or imply, what was the reason – because there were multitude, and
it's very hard if not impossible to separate them. I could say that a large number of people
in the Soviet Russia then felt the party WAS the reason, and that was the reason Lenin
adopted NEP. Without it, I believe it's likely that there would be another revolution, this
time against the party (see Kronstadt). But that still does not start to explain how it got
there, and to an extent it confirms the good old time-inconsistency bias (people blaming
those who are in power, not necessarily those responsible). But that was NOT the point of my
response.
The point was that the claim of the previous poster that "Russia in 1917 promised and
produced an economy, no matter how shaky, that was seen to be for the betterment of the
people" is wrong.
Soviet Russia did improve situation of some people over time (the groups most affected
were children and women, especially younger women, and with these groups the improvement was
extremely dramatic), but at the same time brought extreme suffering and death to millions (of
its own citizens). It would be even silly to start comparing suffering of Americans under
their own government in 20th century vs. USSR citizens (because it wasn't just Russians)
during the same time.
It was only from mid sixties (two generations and tens of millions dead, internally and
from WW2, after the revolution) when the situation started to improve, but that was against
the background of hugely improved situation of people in the USA in 1950s/60s (which was
arguably a golden age for the US in the 20th century).
Ironically, it was later in the century when the two systems started do converge..
but if we want see western involvement in "the reasons", need view Truman evisceration of
FDR – his VP Henry Wallace warnings of what would happen (cold or hot war) if not for
FDR promises to Stalin of $10 billion war reparations for 20-30 million dead defeating
germans, bringing Russia into world trade-equal status.
Rather, said "war reparations" constructed "Marshall Plan" = rebuilding Europe.
Importantly British – Churchill involvement – triangulation of U.S. vs. Russia
further persuaded vehemently anti-communist Truman (backed by James Byrnes-MIC enabler, as
Eisenhower-MIC- warned, next administration) to void FDR – Russian war reparations.
Truman was "chosen" and manipulated to replace Wallace (who appeared win re-nomination first
night) at dem convention 1944, as malleable neophyte, knowing FDR would not survive 4th
administration
What is really unfortunate is that Lenin died when he did, before his time, as he appears
to have been thinking less autocratically. Unfortunately, neither Trotsky nor Stalin were.
After all, Trotsky was the creator of the NKVD, so don't expect too much.
Trotsky may have helped Lenin create the Cheka, which was a precursor to the NKVD (but not
the direct precursor: the GPU and the OGPU came between then). But wasn't Trotsky more
involved with the creation of and organization of the Red Army? The NKVD itself originated in
1934, after Trotsky was out of the government and in exile.
It wasn't just Ukrainians. Even speaking of the Ukrainian SSR, the famines of the 1930's
hit largely Russified oblasts and villages at least as hard as the more ukrainianized.
BTW, this gets Ukrainian nationalists seriously butthurt, even though the most nationalist
parts of Ukraine were not affected, and the future Nazi collaborators were none too bothered
by the famine at the time.
The nation was something too important to let people get in the way.
. . . so, when this manager came through the store a few weeks ago, with a gaggle of
'friends' and assorted sycophants en train, she was heard by several floor workers to be
bragging to her group about her recent vacation to the Virgin Islands.
Classic behavior from a narcissist. The point was to be overheard bragging. Whether the
extra attention garnered is good or bad, makes no difference.
The three 'big' revolutions of the Twentieth Century provided some concrete,
material benefits to the 'masses' of their regions.
Upon reading "the three 'big' revolutions" I thought you would discuss the
Russian, Mexican and Chinese revolutions -- but except for the first one, you delved on the
Nazi coup (its qualification as a revolution is debatable) and FDR (which was in no way a
revolution as it never overthrew or intended to upend the existing socio-political
order).
I should read more about the Mexican revolution, since it is a bit nebulous to me what
concrete material benefits were brought to Mexicans in its immediate aftermath.
The Russians have not completely forgotten the 1917 Revolution. One way they are covering
it is a twitter account that presupposes that people back then had twitter and would post
their thoughts ( https://www.rt.com/news/410100-rt-twitter-project-1917-revolution/
).
Perhaps that revolution had a greater effect than is normally attributed to it. I had never
thought about it before but would FDR have been able to push through his New Deal if there
had been no revolution? What if, and I am just saying, if FDR had told his fellow American
elites that they could try to stop his reforms to the capitalist system but that if there
were no reforms, that they could meet the same fate as their Russian counterparts.
That revolution was only about 16 years before remember, so perhaps FDR pointed out to them
that if there was no reform that they too could end up as smears along a brick wall. Has any
historian assessed what would have happened to America if all reforms had been killed and it
was 'business as usual'? One of these big "what-ifs" which would make a great story.
Russia went from a pre-modern despotism to a modern despotism. An attempt was made to
scientifically accelerate the industrialization that was already underway. This is more
parallel to Japan, than to the US. The US has always been the junior partner of the British
Empire. Under Soviet Communism, pseudo-science flourished, because it was top-down, not
bottom-up, and agendas were driven by political opportunism, not by pragmatism. Russia
remains somewhat of a despotism, though more beneficent than that of Stalin.
"Disturned Voter" describes dynamics, Adam Curtis' BBC documentary, "Pandora's Box":
"PANDORA S BOX is another groundbreaking documentary from British Documentary maker Adam
Curtis. Subtitled A fable from the age of science, this six part series examines the
consequences of political and technocratic rationalism.
The episodes deal in order with communism in the Soviet Union, systems analysis and game
theory during the Cold War, economy in the United Kingdom during the 1970 s, the insecticide
DDT, Kwame Nkrumah s leadership in Ghana during the 1950-60 s and the history of nuclear
power."
Stalin & Mao very obviously largely killed their own, the British Empire primarily
through the East India company killed countless Indians through policies which caused
famines, & goodness, or perhaps badness knows how many Chinese due to the forced
importation of opium.
In the case of the the current empire. I have read estimates of around 20 million since
WW2 which in itself led to the death of around 60 million, following the previous dust up
largely limited to military deaths.
The above perhaps being the top of the hit parade for us natural born killers, but the
means & systems vary. & as with that so far ultimate badass killer the " Black Death
" for the majority it seems, we have to sustain a great many cracked eggs in order to
occasionally make a half digestible omelette – although for most of history, the result
of butchery has only been the production of various sized piles of runny broken shells.
Beginning this essay with Wilsons Amerikkka as the counterpoint to Russian Bolshevism as
competing heirs to Western Enlightenment really does frame away most of what was most
destructive in the era being described.
While Russia's dead in the period were mostly Russians, an epic internal tragedy, the
larger West mostly exported its systematic mayhem, enslaving colonials and killing them
through wealth extraction rather than famin or civil war, though engaging increasingly with
the latter up to the present in the colonies.
The Western capitalist system has at least been better to its internal constituency, with
a number of glaring exceptions, and less so as time passes.
The main effect on the West of the Russian Revolution (or on elites, anyway) was fear. At
the beginning this was fear of a similar popular uprising elsewhere, leading to repression
and the growing influence of both traditional and radical parties of the extreme right.
Later, it was fear of social change – the modernist, scientific society with modern
art, atonal music, secularism and emancipation of women – the end of Christian
civilization as it had always been known. After WW2 it was fear that the role played by the
Communist parties in the resistance in occupied Europe, as well as the unimaginable
sacrifices of the Russian people, would bring Communist governments to power in France and
Italy. Only this fear was enough to persuade elites to set up welfare states and planned
economies, and so guarantee full employment. After the end of Communism, of course, such
concessions were not necessary.
The counterfactual speculation about how the Soviet Union might have turned out if it had not
spent much of its existence rebuilding after two apocalyptic wars, and arming itself to death
for fear of a third, is interesting, but in the end secondary. As AJP Taylor correctly noted,
it was not the practice of Communism which terrified western elites, but the theory.
This is also my take-away from the discussion. The American "worker's paradise" of
1950-1980 was the byproduct of elite fears of Eastern European freighters off-loading
Kalashnikovs for distribution by the AFL-CIO.
After Nixon's opening to China, it became clear that Communism was the paper tiger, and
that worker-whippings could resume. American elites had no more fear -- until the rise of
Black Lives Matter. It remains to be seen whether the current counter-revolution against
wage-earners will succeed. The GOP tax plan and the surveillance state appear to have been
designed to smack down those who did not inherit their income.
> Only this fear was enough to persuade elites to set up welfare states and planned
economies, and so guarantee full employment.
The part that most interests me about the gobs of government benefits is that after the
war the place was packed with young men who were experienced soldiers. Not many slack video
game types.
To me this article seems to reflect a fundamental misunderstanding of the forces at work
and seeks to continue the popular neocon/neolib mantra that Putin/Russia and Trump are
bad.
""The evisceration of idealism that enables both Putin and Trump afflicts us, too.
Maybe the time for quiet moments has passed. Maybe we can raise the volume a bit. Maybe we
can turn the tide back towards the universal, towards understanding something about the other
in ourselves and the self in our others. Wouldn't that be revolutionary?""
A few points that I think are more pertinent.
In Syria Russia has pushed back successfully against another US sponsored regime change
and has helped unite the Arab world. It is also working with China to promote useful economic
projects rather than trying to undermine these projects.
Trump was a reaction against a strong neocon/neolib alternative. He was elected because of
a growing movement against the formation of an increasing precariat.
""Moreover China has gained permission from Russia to offer settlement services in RMB in
Moscow through the China ICBC bank. Thereby China and Russia have effectively bypassed dollar
risk in their mutual economic investments.
All of this development, building up a new economic geography across the countries of
Eurasia is a stark contrast to what Washington has done since September 2001. According to a
new study by the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University,
Washington has spent a staggering $5.6 trillion on wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and
Pakistan since 2001, more than three times what the Pentagon has claimed in official
estimates.
Imagine the United States instead had spent $5.6 trillion on rebuilding America's rotted
$8 trillion infrastructure deficit in roads, rails, water, electric grids– what a boost
for the American people and for the world it would be. They might even imagine peaceful
cooperation in the emerging Russian-Chinese Eurasian development, a true win-win for the
world.""
But how would we build an empire? How would our oligarchs enforce their will on other
countries at gunpoint if we go around wasting money on healthcare, infrastructure, education
and jobs?
That $5.6T sum is something I think about all the time. I look around and imagine how
enriched daily life would be by fabulous parks, schools, roads, and a genuinely sustainable
energy system, among so many others. How much less needless suffering from rheumatoid
arthritis, maybe, or COPD (the two diseases killing my parents slowly).
As ambrit said, us mopes ain't so stupid that we don't know what's up when we see $5.6T
spent on wars that only make necessary more wars for comic-book insane schemes for perpetual
global dominance, but then are told we can't have nice things here at home. Well, at least
present company.
Reminds me of a recent Counterpunch article: Looking
for a Glass of Water and a Place to Shit . (Huh. That article leads off with a quote from
Ramzy Baroud (a tweet?) that puts the BU study number at $3.6T. So I went to the WI site to
find the article. No luck. Followed your link, found the link – Firefox says it's
unsecure:
watson.brown.edu uses an invalid security certificate. The certificate is not trusted
because it is self-signed. The certificate is not valid for the name watson.brown.edu. The
certificate expired on Friday, October 06, 2017, 2:58 PM. The current time is Thursday,
November 23, 2017, 8:51 AM.
So I'm adding a temporary exception. Just fyi.)
The WI study's title is: "United States Budgetary Costs of Post-9/11 Wars Through FY2018:
A Summary of the $5.6 Trillion in Costs for the US Wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, and
Pakistan, and Post-9/11 Veterans Care and Homeland Security."
And how much have we spent just since '08 on Wall Street's little indiscretion? A
December, 2011 CNBC article
cites a UMKC study:
Recently, a pair of PhD students at the University of Missouri-Kansas City tried to
assess the total size of the Fed's commitments -- not just loans made, but asset purchases
as well. The bottom line: a Federal Reserve bailout commitment in excess of $29
trillion.
That figure has, in turn, been criticized by economist James Hamilton who argued,
incredibly, that the Fed's bailout commitment under one facility was zero because all the
money was paid back.
The same CNBC article goes on to give Randall Wray a long rebuttal to that absurd claim.
Didn't expect that.
Six years later, the total is at least 34.6 trillion dollars. But we can't afford real
health care, free lifelong education, or a genuine, sustainable economy built on world-class
infrastructure?
From the Counterpunch article:
Imagine if you will that the U.S. had instead put $3.6 trillion into measures to improve
infrastructure around the world. It has been estimated by the UNDP that to give the entire
world fresh water and sanitation would cost half a trillion. That leaves $3.1 trillion for
further projects. Now what would the U.S. have gained by being the country known for giving
the entire world a glass a water and a place to shit? Think on it.
Even if we'd gone "all in," $3.6T would be about 10% of what we've spent on criminal wars
abroad and legalized looting at home. I see in these numbers political elite madness of
mythic proportions.
And in ambrit's bragging manager we see a person living a life outside-in. It doesn't
matter that her passage through a space draws so much energy that people are literally
impoverished in her wake. She's sounding all the right notes. In another age, she'd be
bragging about the preparations for her pyramid.
(BTW, that age didn't end well for Egypt's elite. A pharaoh whose name escapes me broke
with tradition and had the oral rites of passage that assured his entry into heaven carved in
stone instead, so there'd be absolutely no risk of failing to achieve immortality. His queen
wanted the same. But only the pharaoh was divine. Well, he relented, and that lead to every
elite demanding the same privilege. Pretty soon, even commoners (the horror!) demanded it.
The democratization of divinity led to the collapse of that order.)
It's not a novel observation, just more evidence that elites of every age get used to the
noblesse part, to the exclusion of any sense of oblige . They blithely saw away
at the very branch they stand on, but do it with the latest technology, so it's all good. Not
too long ago, I was offered time in a seaside condo in Mexico in lieu of pay for part-time
work as a vacation rental caretaker – in NW Washington state. The absurdity! It
burns!
"... The continuity of US policy persists no matter what party is in power. The US has been implacably hostile to the Iranian regime since the Shah was toppled and has tried everything including supporting Saddam Hussein's invasion back in the early days of the Iranian revolution. Now with the failure of the Syrian project there may be an idea afoot to double down in a now-or-never roll of the dice. We'll have to see what happens ..."
"... All the bluster from Nikky Haley at the UN is to find a legal loophole to legitimise the illegal presence of US troops (with surrogates) to remain in Syria. Russia was bitten once too often on Libya, and is far more alert to US duplicity. ..."
But their plan is, I think, much cruder: to trigger a serious conflict and then force
the US to intervene.
It could be the reverse, that it's the US that is orchestrating them to create a situation
that the US can then claim a necessity to intervene. The continuity of US policy persists
no matter what party is in power. The US has been implacably hostile to the Iranian regime
since the Shah was toppled and has tried everything including supporting Saddam Hussein's
invasion back in the early days of the Iranian revolution. Now with the failure of the Syrian
project there may be an idea afoot to double down in a now-or-never roll of the dice. We'll
have to see what happens . The internal politics of Saudi Arabia are rather opaque so
what this internal power struggle is really about is hard to guess at particularly with the
sort of media we have. It's interesting how the Saudi Arabian-Israeli alliance has become
less covert these days and is now quite open.
Saudis are not used to receive missiles on their head. They panicked when the Yemeni missile
fell on their airport. I doubt that the crazy kinglet will start a war with Iran. What he
could do is a false flag that kills a few saudis ( chemical weapons) to call the USA to
retaliate
Yet they are so stupid that they would need Israeli expertise to setup the false flag. Israel
wont take the chance to be exposed.. so nothing will happen.
If they can't trigger US intervention they would just shut up and swallow their humilition,
while Israel would be continue its attacks on Syria under the sacred principle of self
protection.
Did this "penetration" make any military difference? The whole "civil war" in Syria has
been started by Israel and its US and KSA proxies, by organising and supporting terrorists.
Direct Israeli military action is nothing compared with unleashing terrorism crazies on the
nearby country, and even that big one lost. If the Israeli military was so mighty why did it
need the terrorists to fight on its behalf? Therefore, the Israeli bombing of Syria is
insignificant and out of pure frustration at a loss.
But a question for you – how does the Israeli bombing of Syria stack up against
Israel being presented as the ethereal victim in the US Ziomedia?
The ultimate irony of the situation is that Israeli effort to dominate and own the ME, by
getting US to attack Iraq and by fomenting sectarianism and terrorism in Syria, has bounced
back to make the situation much worse for Israel than before. My personal expectation was a
little different, I must admit. I expected that the terrorists of The Coalition of the Lovers
of Terrorism would win in Syria,but that the Takfiri crazies would then turn around and bite
the Israeli hand that fed them. Then Israel would get US to occupy Syria on its behalf, to
control the crazies that Israel unleashed. But Russia got involved unexpectedly and now the
last Israeli resort is to get its puppets to bleed in an attack on Iran. Attacking and
occupying Syria, just like Iraq, would have been cheaper for US than attacking Iran.
The almost suicidal US attack on Iran will be the ultimate test of Zionist control over
US, and it could change the things in US quite a lot.
The Saker is really good when he stays away from the weapon systems and mine is bigger than
yours. This strategic analysis of his is quite reasonable. Unlike what the trolls claim,
Saker is not predicting an attack on Iran and neither am I. Simply, there is a struggle going
on in US and EU, between the Zionist influence and the my-country-first resistance. The
Zionists have been winning so far at a huge cost to the countries which were tools of their
plans, they got away with the destruction of all five of the six countries targeted. But this
"success" has solidified the resistance in the tool countries, united some Sunnis (Turkey)
with the Shiites and, even worse, it has considerably strengthened the single remaining
target country – Iran. In other words, the destruction of five out of six countries has
been a very Pyrric victory of the Zionists.
My best guess are two possible outcomes – if the Zionists manage to get US to attack
Iran through some false-flag or otherwise, this will probably lead to the final dismounting
of US from the global stage and US will turn inward to political instability and even
possible civil war. In other words, the Zionists will spend up and sacrifice their main
source of blood and treasure.
The second possible outcome is a status quo with a lot of Israeli barking and strong
resistance in the US to being dragged into an attack on Iran. The Zionists have already used
up most of the credit that their Ziomedia had and no reasonably intelligent person in US
trusts a single word coming out of those media. I just cannot imagine another successful 911
type event which could mobilise US dummies into a war on Iran. Yes, I feel that the Zionists
have already used up all their aces and I just cannot imagine them inventing another original
and powerful new war ace. I do not underestimate people's gullibility but US has been truly
economically too depleted to march into another war. In other words, if internal resistance
prevented attack on Iran in 2007, such attack is even less likely to pass in 2017 or later,
regardless of how much President Swamp is an Israeli puppet or not.
I'm not so certain that Trump intends to let the US get involved. The guy's a deal-maker and
businessman, not a soldier. Trump is simply not a bloodthirsty guy, or he would have sicced
every prosecutor he could get his hands on after the left for the way they're treating him.
He trolls his opponents a lot on twitter, but he does nothing to them except toss snide words
in their direction.
I think Trump sees his role in the Mideast as someone who sells the Israelis and Saudis
lots of expensive weapons systems, shakes their hand and wishes them Godspeed, but he's going
to let them get into trouble on their own. I don't see Trump as someone willing to go
adventuring in the Mideast because he doesn't have to prove his masculinity to himself. He's
already climbed to the top of the heap. He's president of the US. What else does he need to
prove? Nothing, really. I also think he wants to avoid making stupid mistakes. Throwing money
away into expensive quagmires is not his thing.
Israeli military prowess and invincibility is a 100% Hollywood fable
I agree with your assessment. Armies are hardened in combat under battle conditions
against equal or more powerful adversaries. In recent years, Hezbollah and the Syrian army
have become hardened and formidable as an unintended consequence of US/Israeli mischief in
Syria under the auspices of CIA/Mossad-created ISIS, and CIA-created Al Qaeda with its many
facets and pseudonyms. Iran has been training continuously for the imminent attack by US and
Zionist forces, and prevailed in the Iraq-Iran war of 1988, instigated by the US. Today, Iraq
and Iran are on their way to becoming a unified alliance against zionist and imperialistic
forces. The "Shia Crescent" is now a force worthy of awe and admiration.
Meanwhile, the much vaunted IDF has been battle-hardened (ha!) in combat with
stone-throwing children and unarmed Palestinian farmers, with hi-tech expensive anti-missile
defenses being used to bring down home made firecrackers from Hamas. As you point out, in
2006, just Hezbollah alone, without the aid of todays new found allies in Syria and Iraq (and
of course, Iran), was able to rout both aerial and ground attacks by Israel and beat them
back to run with their tails between their legs. 49 of Israel's Merkava tanks (self-declared
God's Chariot) were left as smoldering metal in that action, demolished by hand-held
anti-tank missiles.
Israel probably wants the Saudis to attack Hezbollah, certain to be defeated, and use that
to draw the US into a war against Lebanon. I doubt that they will succeed this time. I think
Netanyahu's precarious position with criminal indictments forthcoming will cause him to do
something stupid like attacking Lebanon. This will prove to be a bridge too far.
We may be seeing the early stages of the destruction of Israel. They may not have 5 years
left, certainly not 10. An unverified CIA memo informed former US President Bill Clinton that
Israel would not exist beyond the year 2022. That is just 5 years away, and the ducks seem to
be lining up in a row, regardless of whether such a memo was ever sent.
I hope you are right Kiza. However:
"I just cannot imagine another successful 911 type event which could mobilise US dummies into
a war on Iran. " Sorry, I can. When anyone says "Ziomedia" they basically mean the MSM in its
entirety. The US Executive & Legislature are also – still – in thrall to the
Zionists. Does anyone (switched on ) actually think it isn't so ?
The only rays of hope i have – & they are not insignificant – is that the
notion of actually attacking a State such as Iran, given its important, if no where near
absolute – advantages should give (the Sane) pause to seriously reconsider. I hope that
the US military still contains such sane individuals.
Short of direct US military intervention it becomes easier to imagine some barely plausible
(but completely "spinable" , provocation by the Israelis: a series of escalating bombing
raids on Iran for Israel's "security" ? A chemical warfare "site" ? A concentration of
Republican guards threatening Israel ?
Poor Israel ! There-was-no-alternative !
And should Iran DARE defend itself ? well it would be all bets off.
So, like the Saker, its all specualtion & worth – whatever but, things tend to go
along Ok -- until they don't.
I remember watching 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. On Israel part failure was
multilevel from top of the military to the bottom. General staff led by air man.
Concentration of almost all of land forces effort on small value prepared in advance target
making fool of oneself wasting time and energy on this target, while bombing civilian
targets. Inability to plan and take decisive deep moves to confront Hezbollah main forces
defeating which would make far more military sense . Obviously IDF did not feel they could
take losses associated with such course of actions and keep going and frankly I feel they
knew they could not considering what we know now about performance of Israeli army at all
levels. All in all israeli army got into the trap carefully prepared for them and got stuck
there. Hezbollah pinned it there along the border and processed with hitting Israel proper
showing complete failure of Israeli army and air force to achieve there goals. This is not
performance of one if the best. Strategic and tactical failures were glaring and fighting
spirit was poor as Israel could not do what was necessary to reverse the situation due to
internal wariness and inability to take losses.
The cruise-missile strike in Syria seemed more symbolic to get his detractors off his
back.
It "seemed" like he was caving in to the will of the swamp. Luckily, someone was kind
enough to inform him afterwards that only the swamp was applauding the event while his base,
and many independents, felt betrayed. That "symbolic" strike, based on transparently false
justifications, cost him a lot of domestic and international support.
Trump was at his strongest during the election. Every time WaPo or NYT tried to box him in
he'd laugh in their faces and pushed in the opposite direction. His popularity among the
voters surged whenever he refused to comply (or "get his detractors off his back").
Regarding Israel. I am not holocaust denier but the course choosen by Israeli and jewish
elites achieving own security and prosperity by denying it all to those who live next to them
is nausetic. By causing directly or indirectly all that suffering in the region Israel
completely forfeited what little justification it used to have to constantly cite Israeli
security concerns.
I would stay away from weapons system as I am not qualified. But when Sacker is not
writing about Soviet past but concentrates on such strategic issues like in his previous
article he produces very good pieces. While I do think his current piece is speculative on
nature, I would never dismiss predictability of stupidity. They did it in Lebanon in 2006.
They can do it again. Until those crazies from basement are completely removed along with
their backers influence there is no relaxing. Strange world. It all reminds of chimps
throwing feces at each other rather than intelligent species. We are wasting resources and
brain power to kill each other instead of going beyond our planet limits and investing in
This what we invest in war.
1995: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran
is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had
to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."
The latest version of the "Putin has won in Syria" argument, which is now being repeated so
often that the "merchandise" obviously isn't selling! If Putin makes himself the protector of
Iran as he has made himself the protector of Syria, so much the better! He irreversibly
bogged in Syria (as in Ukraine) and if he now goes and bogs himself down in Iran as well then
that's yet another nail in his coffin. We'll have to call him Vladimir Boggedownovitch!
Point 5 of the "Israeli" point of view is interesting. Israel and the US do indeed look like
total idiots and have indeed no credibility left. Who caused that? Putin! Obvious solution:
take out Putin! At that point, the problems in Ukraine, Syria, Iran and North Korea are
solved in one swoop and the Russian Federation returns to the peaceful place at the European
table that it was taking until somebody (American?) filled the little policeman's head with
pipedreams of "Eurasian" glory.
By the way, I never trust people who conceal their identity: Southfront, Moon of Alabama. It
usually means that the site is a front of some sort. Credibility zero, therefore.
You understanding of what it means to get bogged down is obviously confused and misplaced.
If you want real definition of getting bogged down look no further than USA in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
However, this is not preventing the Israelis from violating those air defenses on a
constant basis and attacking from the air the very capital of Syria, as admitted by the
Syrians themselves.
1. Stop obvious BS. Israeli DO NOT "violate" those air defense, since they do not attack
(and they can't) ANY Russian targets which those air defenses are there to protect.
Israel attacks SAA's targets. See the difference? Russia is not, at this stage, in the state
of war with Israel, which would open legal and operational framework for shooting down
Israel's AF assets.
2. Should Israel have had such an intention and attack Russian targets–we would be
living in a very different world today. Russians do not take lightly attacks on their targets
and the case of USS Liberty is impossible. The "argument" of Su-24 shot down by Turkish AF is
not applicable here. Why, is a separate issue. Israel knows it and is also in a full hysteria
mode as I type it and it is precisely because should the push comes to shove IDF's "plans" on
Syria will not work anymore. Especially, since Russian VKS MAY at some point of time get the
order to impose real no-fly zone. This is not to speak of the fact that Israelis DO inform
Russian forces in Syria on their plans.
3. Do not conflate two very different issues. This is exactly what you did.
The facts that I never get an answer to this question
Did you get the answer now or do you need this issue to be explained even more in
depth?
Look, I'm a simple civilian just trying to learn how these defenders of the Russian
military technological supremacy explain the apparent paradox that I exposed.
You "exposed" absolutely nothing and there are many "simple civilians" even in this threat
who have absolutely no difficulty in grasping key political, diplomatic and operational
issues re: Russian forces in Syria.
" I don't believe that the Syrian civil war and the rest of the Arab uprisings were
organized by any anglo-zionist conspiration.."
What you believe or don't ain't worthwhile but the Syrian war is not really a 'civil war'
at all and the fact that it originates with a zionist-ZUSA-Saudi conspiracy is well
established:
WikiLeaks: US, Israel, And Saudi Arabia Planned Overthrow Of Syrian Govt. In 2006
[...]Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United
States hoped to overthrow Assad and create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims
The United States and its allies in the Middle East, including Turkey and Israel, have been
frequently accused of contributing to the ongoing destabilization of Syria in the wake of
the uprising and subsequent civil war which began in 2011. But according to cables from the
WikiLeaks archive, discussed in the Syria chapter of Assange's book, plans to deliberately
destabilize the region go back at least five years further.[...]
WikiLeaks cables reveal that these plans came from the Israeli government, and show that
the U.S. government intended to work with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt to
encourage the breakdown of the Assad regime as a way of also weakening Iran and
Hezbollah.
" the Russian military technological supremacy explain the apparent paradox that I
exposed."
You have exposed nothing, you are just a silly person.
Whether or not the Russian A.A systems are as good as advertised is another matter, but the
reason that Syria is not trying to shoot down the israelis is mainly because it does not need
further escalation at this time Syria has been fighting a very difficult war since 2011 and
engaging the israelis now would not be a smart move, even more so as it could provide
additional BS 'motives' for ZUSA to increase its illegal military footprint in the
country.
The job is to eliminate the main threat which are the various Salafi/mercenary groups
backed by the ZUSA coalition that have been plaguing the country since 2011.
That goal is getting closer & closer by the day. Isis nearly gone in Syria, after that;
the Nusra coalition in Idlib.
Calling the covert invasion of Syria a civil war is easy b/c we are conditioned to think
of Arabs and Muslims as incapable of living peacefully.
Very often, a complaint or set of complaints against one individual or group is really
aimed at another.
All the the anti-Muslim rhetoric is nothing more than a device to neuter the one
group,
Arabs, who would be capable of disarming the mindless, pro-Israel lobby.
In September 2007, Israeli warplanes bombed a building in eastern Syria that the
Israelis claimed held a covert nuclear reactor that had been built with North Korean
assistance. . . .
But nothing about that alleged reactor in the Syrian desert turns out to be what it
appeared at the time. The evidence now available shows that there was no such nuclear
reactor, and that the Israelis had misled George W. Bush's administration into
believing that it was in order to draw the United States into bombing missile storage
sites in Syria . Other evidence now suggests, moreover, that the Syrian government
had led the Israelis to believe wrongly that it was a key storage site for
Hezbollah missiles and rockets
All the bluster from Nikky Haley at the UN is to find a legal loophole to legitimise
the illegal presence of US troops (with surrogates) to remain in Syria. Russia was bitten
once too often on Libya, and is far more alert to US duplicity.
The bottom line is that Russia can't impose its will on Israel. If Israel decides to
bomb Russia's allies like Syria or Hezbollah Russia looks the other way.
utu,
With Israel, war is all about air defense – can Russia build up Syrian air defenses
– would it take a year or more – can it even be done?
On the other hand, Israel cannot change the situation on the ground with only air
power.
The bad guys are Wahhabist Saudi and Zionist Israel – they want war. The first is
incompetent, the second wants others to do it.
Agree.
Americans in Syria:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/secretary-mattis-is-off-base-us-military-presence-in-syria-has-no-legal-grounds/5618997
"The establishment of the US base near the Syria-Jordan border [in the area of the Syrian
town of al-Tanf] was publicly justified by the need to conduct operations against Islamic
State. However, no information has been received about any US operations against the group
conducted from this area. To the contrary, IS has been reported to operate freely in an
area abutting the [US] base . On and off, militant groups supposedly trained by Americans
in the area strike Syria government forces. The more US forces are in-theater in Syria, the
greater the chance of conflict between them and Syrian troops."
Essentially, what you are saying is that Saker is wrong in claiming that the Russian and
Syrian air defenses are integrated "in one single network" but he is still right in
claiming the technological air superiority of Russia over the West.
Syria has at its disposal some number of Pantsyr AD systems. Those systems are equipped
with necessary links (what would be called in the West CEC–cooperative engagement
capability) to receive Targeting Data (Bearing (Azimuth), Range, Elevation and target's
maneuvering elements) from other sources. In this sense they are integrated. Saker is not
wrong here. In the end, if to assume the situation with Israeli F-35 and ancient Soviet S-220
Vega even partially true, it merely adds to a well known fact of ability to track and develop
firing solution by Soviet/Russian complexes against any so called "Stealth" targets. In terms
of Air Defense complexes, which, in the end, is the ability to generate random multi-diapason
signal and ability to process large arrays of data (you know–a shitload of Fourier
Transformations and all that naughty signal processing crap) Russians are global leaders.
Recall that Zaslon on first MiG-31s was the world's first phased electronically scanned
radar, as a simple example out of very many.
All modern Russian detection systems (and some
older ones) "see" those targets just fine. "Stealth", which is euphemism for reduction of the
physical field of aircraft in radio-diapason is a marketing meme designed for the consumption
of people far removed from military. The time is up for all this boastful BS. Once radiophotonics comes on-line (and it is coming soon) all this talk about "Stealth" will be
relegated to forums of military fanboys.
Perhaps a convincing answer could go along the lines of saying that the Russian and
Syrian air defenses are independent and not integrated, that the Russians have only
provided such and such air defense systems to the Syrians due to such and such reasons and
this allows the Israelis to defeat them taking such and such measures.
Again, we don't know HOW Syrian S-200 received targeting data, it might have been through
own system or, turn your own imagination on. If it was through OWN systems–the news for
F-35 are horrible (they are horrible one way or another, anyway) and merely confirm what is
already known in professional environment–American military technologies are, simply,
not that good.
if the Russians really wanted to prevent their allies from being constantly attacked
from the air, they could do such an such. As far as I'm concerned, all the rest is, as you
say, BS.
No, it is you who talks a complete BS and ignorant nonsense and I sense a lot of
butt-hurt, which is not unusual on these discussion boards.
However I bet that if there was an all on war the Russians could shoot down a large
number of the Israelis aircraft.
Let's try to estimate the number of planes they can shoot down. How many S-XXX batteries
Russia has in Syria. Say N batteries. Each battery has K tubes. How much time does it take to
reload K tubes? Say ∆T minutes.
N*K<40
How many F-15 and F-16 Israel has? About 400.
Israel can swarm and overwhelm Russia's defense. N*K is no more than 40. Out of 40
missiles at best 20 will hit their targets. This leaves 380 Israel planes. Each battery that
launches one missile will be destroyed in less than ∆T time.
However Israel would not use F-15 and F-16 in the first attack. Some planes would be
sacrificed to provoke Russians to fire first. But then S-XXX batteries would be attacked with
missile, decoys and drones.
The total operation would last less than 60 minutes to wipe out everything Russia has in
Syria that can shoot down a plane and everything they have that can fly.
"... The continuity of US policy persists no matter what party is in power. The US has been implacably hostile to the Iranian regime since the Shah was toppled and has tried everything including supporting Saddam Hussein's invasion back in the early days of the Iranian revolution. Now with the failure of the Syrian project there may be an idea afoot to double down in a now-or-never roll of the dice. We'll have to see what happens ..."
"... All the bluster from Nikky Haley at the UN is to find a legal loophole to legitimise the illegal presence of US troops (with surrogates) to remain in Syria. Russia was bitten once too often on Libya, and is far more alert to US duplicity. ..."
But their plan is, I think, much cruder: to trigger a serious conflict and then force
the US to intervene.
It could be the reverse, that it's the US that is orchestrating them to create a situation
that the US can then claim a necessity to intervene. The continuity of US policy persists
no matter what party is in power. The US has been implacably hostile to the Iranian regime
since the Shah was toppled and has tried everything including supporting Saddam Hussein's
invasion back in the early days of the Iranian revolution. Now with the failure of the Syrian
project there may be an idea afoot to double down in a now-or-never roll of the dice. We'll
have to see what happens . The internal politics of Saudi Arabia are rather opaque so
what this internal power struggle is really about is hard to guess at particularly with the
sort of media we have. It's interesting how the Saudi Arabian-Israeli alliance has become
less covert these days and is now quite open.
Saudis are not used to receive missiles on their head. They panicked when the Yemeni missile
fell on their airport. I doubt that the crazy kinglet will start a war with Iran. What he
could do is a false flag that kills a few saudis ( chemical weapons) to call the USA to
retaliate
Yet they are so stupid that they would need Israeli expertise to setup the false flag. Israel
wont take the chance to be exposed.. so nothing will happen.
If they can't trigger US intervention they would just shut up and swallow their humilition,
while Israel would be continue its attacks on Syria under the sacred principle of self
protection.
Did this "penetration" make any military difference? The whole "civil war" in Syria has
been started by Israel and its US and KSA proxies, by organising and supporting terrorists.
Direct Israeli military action is nothing compared with unleashing terrorism crazies on the
nearby country, and even that big one lost. If the Israeli military was so mighty why did it
need the terrorists to fight on its behalf? Therefore, the Israeli bombing of Syria is
insignificant and out of pure frustration at a loss.
But a question for you – how does the Israeli bombing of Syria stack up against
Israel being presented as the ethereal victim in the US Ziomedia?
The ultimate irony of the situation is that Israeli effort to dominate and own the ME, by
getting US to attack Iraq and by fomenting sectarianism and terrorism in Syria, has bounced
back to make the situation much worse for Israel than before. My personal expectation was a
little different, I must admit. I expected that the terrorists of The Coalition of the Lovers
of Terrorism would win in Syria,but that the Takfiri crazies would then turn around and bite
the Israeli hand that fed them. Then Israel would get US to occupy Syria on its behalf, to
control the crazies that Israel unleashed. But Russia got involved unexpectedly and now the
last Israeli resort is to get its puppets to bleed in an attack on Iran. Attacking and
occupying Syria, just like Iraq, would have been cheaper for US than attacking Iran.
The almost suicidal US attack on Iran will be the ultimate test of Zionist control over
US, and it could change the things in US quite a lot.
The Saker is really good when he stays away from the weapon systems and mine is bigger than
yours. This strategic analysis of his is quite reasonable. Unlike what the trolls claim,
Saker is not predicting an attack on Iran and neither am I. Simply, there is a struggle going
on in US and EU, between the Zionist influence and the my-country-first resistance. The
Zionists have been winning so far at a huge cost to the countries which were tools of their
plans, they got away with the destruction of all five of the six countries targeted. But this
"success" has solidified the resistance in the tool countries, united some Sunnis (Turkey)
with the Shiites and, even worse, it has considerably strengthened the single remaining
target country – Iran. In other words, the destruction of five out of six countries has
been a very Pyrric victory of the Zionists.
My best guess are two possible outcomes – if the Zionists manage to get US to attack
Iran through some false-flag or otherwise, this will probably lead to the final dismounting
of US from the global stage and US will turn inward to political instability and even
possible civil war. In other words, the Zionists will spend up and sacrifice their main
source of blood and treasure.
The second possible outcome is a status quo with a lot of Israeli barking and strong
resistance in the US to being dragged into an attack on Iran. The Zionists have already used
up most of the credit that their Ziomedia had and no reasonably intelligent person in US
trusts a single word coming out of those media. I just cannot imagine another successful 911
type event which could mobilise US dummies into a war on Iran. Yes, I feel that the Zionists
have already used up all their aces and I just cannot imagine them inventing another original
and powerful new war ace. I do not underestimate people's gullibility but US has been truly
economically too depleted to march into another war. In other words, if internal resistance
prevented attack on Iran in 2007, such attack is even less likely to pass in 2017 or later,
regardless of how much President Swamp is an Israeli puppet or not.
I'm not so certain that Trump intends to let the US get involved. The guy's a deal-maker and
businessman, not a soldier. Trump is simply not a bloodthirsty guy, or he would have sicced
every prosecutor he could get his hands on after the left for the way they're treating him.
He trolls his opponents a lot on twitter, but he does nothing to them except toss snide words
in their direction.
I think Trump sees his role in the Mideast as someone who sells the Israelis and Saudis
lots of expensive weapons systems, shakes their hand and wishes them Godspeed, but he's going
to let them get into trouble on their own. I don't see Trump as someone willing to go
adventuring in the Mideast because he doesn't have to prove his masculinity to himself. He's
already climbed to the top of the heap. He's president of the US. What else does he need to
prove? Nothing, really. I also think he wants to avoid making stupid mistakes. Throwing money
away into expensive quagmires is not his thing.
Israeli military prowess and invincibility is a 100% Hollywood fable
I agree with your assessment. Armies are hardened in combat under battle conditions
against equal or more powerful adversaries. In recent years, Hezbollah and the Syrian army
have become hardened and formidable as an unintended consequence of US/Israeli mischief in
Syria under the auspices of CIA/Mossad-created ISIS, and CIA-created Al Qaeda with its many
facets and pseudonyms. Iran has been training continuously for the imminent attack by US and
Zionist forces, and prevailed in the Iraq-Iran war of 1988, instigated by the US. Today, Iraq
and Iran are on their way to becoming a unified alliance against zionist and imperialistic
forces. The "Shia Crescent" is now a force worthy of awe and admiration.
Meanwhile, the much vaunted IDF has been battle-hardened (ha!) in combat with
stone-throwing children and unarmed Palestinian farmers, with hi-tech expensive anti-missile
defenses being used to bring down home made firecrackers from Hamas. As you point out, in
2006, just Hezbollah alone, without the aid of todays new found allies in Syria and Iraq (and
of course, Iran), was able to rout both aerial and ground attacks by Israel and beat them
back to run with their tails between their legs. 49 of Israel's Merkava tanks (self-declared
God's Chariot) were left as smoldering metal in that action, demolished by hand-held
anti-tank missiles.
Israel probably wants the Saudis to attack Hezbollah, certain to be defeated, and use that
to draw the US into a war against Lebanon. I doubt that they will succeed this time. I think
Netanyahu's precarious position with criminal indictments forthcoming will cause him to do
something stupid like attacking Lebanon. This will prove to be a bridge too far.
We may be seeing the early stages of the destruction of Israel. They may not have 5 years
left, certainly not 10. An unverified CIA memo informed former US President Bill Clinton that
Israel would not exist beyond the year 2022. That is just 5 years away, and the ducks seem to
be lining up in a row, regardless of whether such a memo was ever sent.
I hope you are right Kiza. However:
"I just cannot imagine another successful 911 type event which could mobilise US dummies into
a war on Iran. " Sorry, I can. When anyone says "Ziomedia" they basically mean the MSM in its
entirety. The US Executive & Legislature are also – still – in thrall to the
Zionists. Does anyone (switched on ) actually think it isn't so ?
The only rays of hope i have – & they are not insignificant – is that the
notion of actually attacking a State such as Iran, given its important, if no where near
absolute – advantages should give (the Sane) pause to seriously reconsider. I hope that
the US military still contains such sane individuals.
Short of direct US military intervention it becomes easier to imagine some barely plausible
(but completely "spinable" , provocation by the Israelis: a series of escalating bombing
raids on Iran for Israel's "security" ? A chemical warfare "site" ? A concentration of
Republican guards threatening Israel ?
Poor Israel ! There-was-no-alternative !
And should Iran DARE defend itself ? well it would be all bets off.
So, like the Saker, its all specualtion & worth – whatever but, things tend to go
along Ok -- until they don't.
I remember watching 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. On Israel part failure was
multilevel from top of the military to the bottom. General staff led by air man.
Concentration of almost all of land forces effort on small value prepared in advance target
making fool of oneself wasting time and energy on this target, while bombing civilian
targets. Inability to plan and take decisive deep moves to confront Hezbollah main forces
defeating which would make far more military sense . Obviously IDF did not feel they could
take losses associated with such course of actions and keep going and frankly I feel they
knew they could not considering what we know now about performance of Israeli army at all
levels. All in all israeli army got into the trap carefully prepared for them and got stuck
there. Hezbollah pinned it there along the border and processed with hitting Israel proper
showing complete failure of Israeli army and air force to achieve there goals. This is not
performance of one if the best. Strategic and tactical failures were glaring and fighting
spirit was poor as Israel could not do what was necessary to reverse the situation due to
internal wariness and inability to take losses.
The cruise-missile strike in Syria seemed more symbolic to get his detractors off his
back.
It "seemed" like he was caving in to the will of the swamp. Luckily, someone was kind
enough to inform him afterwards that only the swamp was applauding the event while his base,
and many independents, felt betrayed. That "symbolic" strike, based on transparently false
justifications, cost him a lot of domestic and international support.
Trump was at his strongest during the election. Every time WaPo or NYT tried to box him in
he'd laugh in their faces and pushed in the opposite direction. His popularity among the
voters surged whenever he refused to comply (or "get his detractors off his back").
Regarding Israel. I am not holocaust denier but the course choosen by Israeli and jewish
elites achieving own security and prosperity by denying it all to those who live next to them
is nausetic. By causing directly or indirectly all that suffering in the region Israel
completely forfeited what little justification it used to have to constantly cite Israeli
security concerns.
I would stay away from weapons system as I am not qualified. But when Sacker is not
writing about Soviet past but concentrates on such strategic issues like in his previous
article he produces very good pieces. While I do think his current piece is speculative on
nature, I would never dismiss predictability of stupidity. They did it in Lebanon in 2006.
They can do it again. Until those crazies from basement are completely removed along with
their backers influence there is no relaxing. Strange world. It all reminds of chimps
throwing feces at each other rather than intelligent species. We are wasting resources and
brain power to kill each other instead of going beyond our planet limits and investing in
This what we invest in war.
1995: Israeli parliamentarian Benjamin Netanyahu tells his colleagues that Iran
is 3 to 5 years from being able to produce a nuclear weapon – and that the threat had
to be "uprooted by an international front headed by the US."
The latest version of the "Putin has won in Syria" argument, which is now being repeated so
often that the "merchandise" obviously isn't selling! If Putin makes himself the protector of
Iran as he has made himself the protector of Syria, so much the better! He irreversibly
bogged in Syria (as in Ukraine) and if he now goes and bogs himself down in Iran as well then
that's yet another nail in his coffin. We'll have to call him Vladimir Boggedownovitch!
Point 5 of the "Israeli" point of view is interesting. Israel and the US do indeed look like
total idiots and have indeed no credibility left. Who caused that? Putin! Obvious solution:
take out Putin! At that point, the problems in Ukraine, Syria, Iran and North Korea are
solved in one swoop and the Russian Federation returns to the peaceful place at the European
table that it was taking until somebody (American?) filled the little policeman's head with
pipedreams of "Eurasian" glory.
By the way, I never trust people who conceal their identity: Southfront, Moon of Alabama. It
usually means that the site is a front of some sort. Credibility zero, therefore.
You understanding of what it means to get bogged down is obviously confused and misplaced.
If you want real definition of getting bogged down look no further than USA in Afghanistan
and Iraq.
However, this is not preventing the Israelis from violating those air defenses on a
constant basis and attacking from the air the very capital of Syria, as admitted by the
Syrians themselves.
1. Stop obvious BS. Israeli DO NOT "violate" those air defense, since they do not attack
(and they can't) ANY Russian targets which those air defenses are there to protect.
Israel attacks SAA's targets. See the difference? Russia is not, at this stage, in the state
of war with Israel, which would open legal and operational framework for shooting down
Israel's AF assets.
2. Should Israel have had such an intention and attack Russian targets–we would be
living in a very different world today. Russians do not take lightly attacks on their targets
and the case of USS Liberty is impossible. The "argument" of Su-24 shot down by Turkish AF is
not applicable here. Why, is a separate issue. Israel knows it and is also in a full hysteria
mode as I type it and it is precisely because should the push comes to shove IDF's "plans" on
Syria will not work anymore. Especially, since Russian VKS MAY at some point of time get the
order to impose real no-fly zone. This is not to speak of the fact that Israelis DO inform
Russian forces in Syria on their plans.
3. Do not conflate two very different issues. This is exactly what you did.
The facts that I never get an answer to this question
Did you get the answer now or do you need this issue to be explained even more in
depth?
Look, I'm a simple civilian just trying to learn how these defenders of the Russian
military technological supremacy explain the apparent paradox that I exposed.
You "exposed" absolutely nothing and there are many "simple civilians" even in this threat
who have absolutely no difficulty in grasping key political, diplomatic and operational
issues re: Russian forces in Syria.
" I don't believe that the Syrian civil war and the rest of the Arab uprisings were
organized by any anglo-zionist conspiration.."
What you believe or don't ain't worthwhile but the Syrian war is not really a 'civil war'
at all and the fact that it originates with a zionist-ZUSA-Saudi conspiracy is well
established:
WikiLeaks: US, Israel, And Saudi Arabia Planned Overthrow Of Syrian Govt. In 2006
[...]Cables reveal that before the beginning of the Syrian revolt and civil war, the United
States hoped to overthrow Assad and create strife between Shiite and Sunni Muslims
The United States and its allies in the Middle East, including Turkey and Israel, have been
frequently accused of contributing to the ongoing destabilization of Syria in the wake of
the uprising and subsequent civil war which began in 2011. But according to cables from the
WikiLeaks archive, discussed in the Syria chapter of Assange's book, plans to deliberately
destabilize the region go back at least five years further.[...]
WikiLeaks cables reveal that these plans came from the Israeli government, and show that
the U.S. government intended to work with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and Egypt to
encourage the breakdown of the Assad regime as a way of also weakening Iran and
Hezbollah.
" the Russian military technological supremacy explain the apparent paradox that I
exposed."
You have exposed nothing, you are just a silly person.
Whether or not the Russian A.A systems are as good as advertised is another matter, but the
reason that Syria is not trying to shoot down the israelis is mainly because it does not need
further escalation at this time Syria has been fighting a very difficult war since 2011 and
engaging the israelis now would not be a smart move, even more so as it could provide
additional BS 'motives' for ZUSA to increase its illegal military footprint in the
country.
The job is to eliminate the main threat which are the various Salafi/mercenary groups
backed by the ZUSA coalition that have been plaguing the country since 2011.
That goal is getting closer & closer by the day. Isis nearly gone in Syria, after that;
the Nusra coalition in Idlib.
Calling the covert invasion of Syria a civil war is easy b/c we are conditioned to think
of Arabs and Muslims as incapable of living peacefully.
Very often, a complaint or set of complaints against one individual or group is really
aimed at another.
All the the anti-Muslim rhetoric is nothing more than a device to neuter the one
group,
Arabs, who would be capable of disarming the mindless, pro-Israel lobby.
In September 2007, Israeli warplanes bombed a building in eastern Syria that the
Israelis claimed held a covert nuclear reactor that had been built with North Korean
assistance. . . .
But nothing about that alleged reactor in the Syrian desert turns out to be what it
appeared at the time. The evidence now available shows that there was no such nuclear
reactor, and that the Israelis had misled George W. Bush's administration into
believing that it was in order to draw the United States into bombing missile storage
sites in Syria . Other evidence now suggests, moreover, that the Syrian government
had led the Israelis to believe wrongly that it was a key storage site for
Hezbollah missiles and rockets
All the bluster from Nikky Haley at the UN is to find a legal loophole to legitimise
the illegal presence of US troops (with surrogates) to remain in Syria. Russia was bitten
once too often on Libya, and is far more alert to US duplicity.
The bottom line is that Russia can't impose its will on Israel. If Israel decides to
bomb Russia's allies like Syria or Hezbollah Russia looks the other way.
utu,
With Israel, war is all about air defense – can Russia build up Syrian air defenses
– would it take a year or more – can it even be done?
On the other hand, Israel cannot change the situation on the ground with only air
power.
The bad guys are Wahhabist Saudi and Zionist Israel – they want war. The first is
incompetent, the second wants others to do it.
Agree.
Americans in Syria:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/secretary-mattis-is-off-base-us-military-presence-in-syria-has-no-legal-grounds/5618997
"The establishment of the US base near the Syria-Jordan border [in the area of the Syrian
town of al-Tanf] was publicly justified by the need to conduct operations against Islamic
State. However, no information has been received about any US operations against the group
conducted from this area. To the contrary, IS has been reported to operate freely in an
area abutting the [US] base . On and off, militant groups supposedly trained by Americans
in the area strike Syria government forces. The more US forces are in-theater in Syria, the
greater the chance of conflict between them and Syrian troops."
Just imagine what songs Bandar Bush is singing in "the Ritz" these days. Want to sue Saudi
Arabia for money because of 9/11? No problem, judge. Here are the names, here are the
numbers, and here are the facts.
Disagree regarding multipolar order. The super structures for Globalism are untouched in
all this theatrical displays. All parties seem to participate actively in key Globalist
institutions.
Petrodollar is not and was never a component of NWO. It was an instrument of American
supremacy. There are no planned superpowers in the NWO vision. Only Super-Institutions
.
The reason why I called the accusation against Tito "absurd" isn't because Tito is above criticism.It's because anything he can be criticized for doesn't hold a candle to what was going on at the same time in the Soviet Union. The differences are many, and all in Yugoslavia's favour. The Soviet Union completely disempowered the workers, forbade emigration, and left almost no room for dissent. On the other hand, if socialism means the control of real workers over the means of production, Yugoslavia is the only country in history that's made a real go at it. The experiment wasn't completely successful (for example, Yugoslavia struggled with unemployment more than its neighbours did), but as an economic model, it was both more humane and more successful than the model used in the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc (with the partial exception of Poland and Hungary, which were both somewhat ideosyncratic, and outshone their neighbours economically). The problem of unemployment was mitigated by the fact that workers were allowed to travel to find work, and most of them did so, rather than cutting off ties with Yugoslavia and just disappearing in the West. Yugoslavia bested the Soviet Union and Eastern bloc at the most basic test of providing for the people; it could trust them not to all rush for the exits the moment they were given the opportunity. Finally, contrast the Soviet response to even the slightest dissent to Tito's response to the student protests in 1968. Can anyone imagine Brezhnev or even Khrushchev saying "the students are right," and actually addressing their concerns? The question answers itself.
