From Peter the Great to Catherine the Great to Alexander I, Nicholas I, Alexander II,
Alexander III and Nicholas II in 1917, Romanov czars ruled Russia. After 1917 came Vladimir
Lenin, Joseph Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev, Leonid Brezhnev, Mikhail Gorbachev, Boris Yeltsin
and Vladimir Putin.
Pat was doing so well up until this set of sentences... when Pat Buchanan horribly erred
in including the shifty and ne'er-do-well Boris Yeltsin as such person was an idiot & a
crook so much more so than an autocrat... He was too dumb, crooked, naive, drunken, and out
of touch with reality to be an autocrat... Yeltsin was just a fool, a lost fool, a forlorn
fool, and a weakling... Much like the Czar that came under the spell of Rasputin... Yeltsin
bought into all the Western Elites malarkey and foolishness about economic reforms that came
close to ruining Russian civilization and destroying Russia as a society and a nation...
Thereafter God upon feeling guilty for having allowed the worthless Yeltsin onto power...
then God sent the Angel St. Vladimir to save Russian civilization from destruction and to
save the Russian people... and the Holy Putin worked his magic and Russia was not destroyed,
the Russians were saved, and Russian civilization preserved for the future and spared its
demise...
CovidBannedTard 12 hours ago (Edited) remove link
The CCP loving corporate western bankers who sold American manufacturing to the CCP almost
had Russia on its knees with Yeltsin.They were asset stripping it.
Then Putin slammed their tally whackers in a door.
And booted them out.
The same CCP loving corporate bankers are still asset stripping America 21 years and
counting since Putin kicked them out.
Several previous studies have examined the risks across generations of radiation exposure
from events such as this, but have yielded inconclusive results. In this study, the
investigators analyzed the genomes
of 130 children and parents from families where one or both parents were exposed to
radiation due to the Chernobyl accident, and where children were conceived afterward and born
between 1987 and 2002.
There was no increase in gene changes in reproductive cells of study participants, and
rates of new germline mutations were similar to those in the general population, according to a
team led by Meredith Yeager of the U.S. National Cancer Institute, in Rockville,
Md.
Don't make simple things complicated the irony of starting this way for this post lol :D
(of course everything is complicated as well as simple, language betrays us all).
· The people of the Warsaw pact and then the Russians did what they did for
themselves and not for others, and they did it by themselves. It went well as long as the
people were in charge (ie. the initial actions) but the politicians then soon messed it up as
politicians anywhere are bound to do.
Gorbachev and Yeltsin didn't want or wish for disasters due to the results they got (and
maybe their tasks were impossible in their context). Clear mistakes were made and crimes
"allowed", far too much was rushed and ill thought out. The politicians had no way of being
prepared any more than they would be in the US right now.
· The US is out-competed, dysfunctional, and trapped in a cycle of excuses
in order to shoehorn their labyrinth of lies into their current reality. All people lie
despite this clear lesson as to why no one should, it is the lies one tells without realizing
they are lies that are the worst. This is much like the USSR was but easily even worse.
Will people in Europe and the US manage to duplicate the fall of the Warsaw pact and the
USSR? Right now it looks unlikely but remember or be aware that no one predicted the fall of
the Iron Curtain or the Politburo and most if not all outsiders in "the west" had trouble
believing it and understanding it when it happened or even now (and especially people
on both/all sides that are running on ideological biases as fuel).
(Our systems and models do not capture reality and can not, not even theoretically, a
different bigger discussion which boils down to the Shannon limit in the end (but I notice
thermodynamics is contentious among some so why would I invite that much work?)).
A repeat of history is not necessary nor automatic; the US isn't doing anything to stop
its own ongoing fall, at least not anything that I have noticed.
Because b is right.
(I really hope the CPC has a better grasp on this than that article vk posted hints at
because I want a stable prosperous China and that includes/demands the continuation of the
CPC and the way they have shaped and structured the Chinese system which is noticeable for
not taking the USSR approach that worked itself into a blind alley despite decades of
repeated attempts at reform (hell even Stalin tried)).
Interesting interview. Apparently, Yuri Andropov had a contingency plan on the event of
the disintegration of the USSR - and yes, it included the partition of the Ukraine into two
("east bank Ukraine" and "west bank Ukraine" - probably West of the Dnieper, East of the
Dnieper). It's in Russian, so maybe inconsistencies with automatic translation may exist:
The interview is with Russian neoliberal banker (of the circle of Yeltsin and Gaidar, St.
Petersburg intelligentsia) Viktor Loshak, from "Alfa-Bank group" (machine translation). He
was a working under Shatalin in the 1980s, so he's allegedly an eye witness (primary source)
of the alleged plans.
He also claims that the St. Petersburg neoliberals never intended to end the Union, and
that what really happened in the 1990s wasn't intended. Smells like revisionism to me, but
ok, the St. Petersburg circle was never known for their intellectual prowess, so it's
possible.
--//--
@ Posted by: Mao Cheng Ji | Apr 10 2021 21:07 utc | 51
It has in the sense that the Ukraine wants to restore its entire territory, not just some
part of it. There is no scenario where, it being able to reconquer LPR-DPR, it would leave
Crimea with Russia.
People are all too vulnerable in the Righteous Empire. The enforcers of right attitudes can
do with you anything, anything at all. A scientist who kept quiet when he heard the word n<
> being uttered, has lost
his job . A man, Robert Hoogland, has been
sent to jail for calling his 14-year-old daughter, "daughter", and publicly referring to
her with the pronouns "she" and "her", while the girl still isn't allowed yet to buy beer
insists she will be a man. Add to that the misery created by lockdowns, and you will understand
why thousands of Russian émigrés rush back into Mother Russia.
Since 1980s, Russians considered themselves lucky if they could escape their frosty homeland
and move westward. The children of Stalin and Khrushchev, top government figures of Yeltsin
days, artists and scientists, moved to Florida or Paris. They were always ready to condemn
Putin the brutal dictator. A popular film actor Mr Alexei
Serebryakov had left Russia for Canada, angrily slamming the door, condemning the "bloody
regime" and Russia's "mix of strength, arrogance and rudeness". And suddenly – the wind
had changed, and the reverse drift has begun. Serebryakov returned from Canada, though many
Russians aren't welcoming his move back at all. A science journalist Asya Kazantseva returned
to Moscow from Tel Aviv and Bristol, UK and wrote:
An unexpected collateral effect of the pandemic is that all the friends who immigrated to
Europe a long time ago flocked home to spend the winter here in Moscow, where vaccines are
free and available, and there is no lockdown. Social life here is twice as active as it was
in peacetime. I will never be lonely again! [A popular Jewish blogger] Alina Farkash recently
wrote that in Moscow, you are a beloved child in a large family, while emigration [in her
case to Israel] is like being sent to an orphanage. That's all true. I really hope that I
will never go anywhere else, that I will always be here, and that I will firmly remember what
an endless happiness it is just to be here."
Indeed, Russia is not a wonderland; it has many faults and problems. Its oligarchs are too
rich, its people are rather poor; taxes are too low; the social gap is greater than in the US
or China, as you can read in this text (in Russian) .
However, Russia is free. You can say and write whatever you wish. There are no lockdowns.
Schools operate as usual; distance learning is rare. Churches are open. Theatres, ditto. There
are no obligatory masks; where they are obligatory, the Russians still ignore them.
Soviet leaders were of the people as you say, yes, but when you drill into the details of
their careers before they became General Secretaries of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union, you find they had careers as political administrators and propagandists. Only Leonid
Brezhnev had a technical background. They were the early equivalents of people like former UK
Prime Minister David
Cameron who went straight into the British Conservative Party after leaving Oxford
University with typical graduate qualifications for a career party hack and who for a time
worked for a media communications company; or like current Australian Prime Minister
Scott Morrison
who worked in marketing executive roles in which his most outstanding qualities were his
sheer ineptitude and flouting procurement guidelines.
From Nikita Khrushchev onwards, all General Secretaries with the exceptions of Yuri
Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko (neither of whom lasted long as leaders) had some personal
or family connection with the Ukrainian SSR. This may not have been coincidence: it may
suggest that there was a network of individuals selecting future leaders for promotion based
on close personal career connections.
Until recently most people in the most senior
levels of the Communist Party of China , from whom China's leaders are drawn, had
technical, engineering or scientific backgrounds. Current members are now drawn from most
walks of life though several of them have worked in factories or done manual labour at some
point in their working lives.
As a south east asian myself, I do think the east asians really aren't the way forward,
not until Korea is united, Vietnam and China rid themselves of "to be rich is to be glorious"
Dengists, Japan free of LDP and American sock puppetry. I'm also VERY wary of chinese
reactionaries who speak of Confucianism.
Maybe the grass is always greener on the other side, but I look favorably to the slavs and
their culture, and of course the shining beacon that was the USSR and the 2nd world until
1991 fucks everything up.
Taoism nowadays is basically superstitions. The historical taoist practiced by the ancient
and medieval chinese political class is basically free market libertarianism "just let the
market regulates itself bruh".
There's a reason that most of the greatest chinese emperors practice legalism (Qin Shi
Huang, Liu Bang, Han Wudi), which is direct government intervention in all matters,
especially in market and infrastructure, while the Taoist-leaned dynasty (i.e. the Song)
resulted in mysticism and the take-over of China by the khitdan and then mongols.
In the West, "Taoism" and "Buddhism" are rebranded as some kind of new age exotic
philosophies, but in Asia proper, Taoism is kookery and Buddhism is militarist/nationalist
state religion, see Myanmar and Thailand.
I see you qualify your comment by specifying Hong Kong Chinese. They most certainly are
not Mainlanders and have a culture polluted by British Imperialism that's closer to the
Gangsterism of Chiang Kai-shek than Mao's Collectivism.
You may recall the book and video Affluenza that does a good job of explaining how
traditional conservative mores are assaulted and trampled by affluent modernity. Such
outcomes aren't restricted to North America but are global thanks to human similarity.
If one were to develop a moral equivalency chart evaluating all global cultures and major
sub-cultures, you'd see a majestic hodge-podge with very little uniformity, which also
relates to the very uneven state of human development in all its facets. The great task of
humanity over the next several centuries is to peacefully level out those disparities. But as
I wrote on the Shia thread, the remaining Imperialist nations are a very large impediment in
attaining that goal and need to be removed so humanity can evolve.
There is no reason to speculate. Chinese culture, history, stories, have the answers.
The Romance of the Three Kingdoms, for example, has:
3 brothers who are put forwards as "godly". There is a celebrated image of the three of
them making the vow of brotherhood in an orchard. The leader, Liu Bei, is a prince of the
declining dynasty. He basically constantly virtue signals, but basically mostly does as the
rest, which is fight, kill, and grab other people's territories. His two other brothers
include a psycho drunk and a supremely self satisfied other. They look good next to a
character like Cao Cao;
the intelligentsia are basically bunch of self satisfied gurus of varying degrees of
competence that compete with devising deception schemes against other kingdoms.
the military is hardcore, brutal. also stuck on formations, aesthetics, which can be a
weakness.
the general population are docile cattle.
What the world hasn't seen for 2 centuries is the famous Chinese arrogance that was their
reputation until they truly pooped the pooch of their country with the arrival of Jews and
Europeans.
A certain fragrance of superstition and sentimentality also is always present, at various
degrees.
Obsequious to superiors, inhuman to inferiors. This is what you can expect from a world
order with Chinese characteristics.
Lurking Dragon 66
Obsequious to superiors, inhuman to inferiors. This is what you can expect from a world order
with Chinese characteristics.
Well, this is what we are seeing from our western "partners" as was bestowed upon the
globe by so many self righteous defenders of human rights, democracy and the "white man's
burden"
See for an example Halliburton's mercenaries, ISIS and other creepy creatures invented and
bestowed upon civilisation by people that believe that if you are not jewish, you are not
human and, therefore, can be dispensed at will if of no use to the chosen ones.
Yes, the western hippie generation is very fueled by drugs and new age philosophies. But
note that these rebranded exotic religions do not resemble the native ones.
For example in Asia proper, you have actual deities to worship in Taoism, and it's not
just a philosophy waxing about the Dao like in the west. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daode_Tianzun
And Taoist priests are still an actual thing, and you can hire them to check Feng Shui and
even exorcism.
Still, it's superstitions and money making schemes, and I wouldn't put much trust in
them.
Obsequious to superiors, inhuman to inferiors. This is what you can expect from a world
order with Chinese characteristics.
Posted by: LurkingDragon | Mar 6 2021 1:17 utc | 66
That sounds pretty much like every job I have had here in the USA all of my life. (Except
the union jobs.) There is a reason they hate unions, especially ones that have not been
domesticated yet.)
Hong Kong culture is very different from the culture of Mainland China, thanks in no small
part to HK having once been a link between China and the rest of the world for a long time
and becoming very wealthy as a manufacturing and financial services centre as a result. HK
people are very materialistic and status-conscious, and look down on other Chinese (to say
nothing of what they think of other Asians and other non-white people) who do not speak HK
Cantonese. The only people HK people respect are English-speaking white British and
Americans.
My parents visited HK back in the 1990s and my mother tried speaking Taishanese (our
native language: it is related to Cantonese and is spoken just west of the Pearl River delta
not far from Macau, in Guangdong province) to shop assistants. They ignored her and it was
only when she switched to English that their attitude changed dramatically and fell over one
another to help.
Before the 1980s, huge numbers of Cantonese people living in English-speaking countries
were actually Taishanese speakers. My parents visited San Francisco's Chinatown in 1988 and
nearly everyone they came across spoke Taishanese. It was the dominant language there.
My dad's second (and current) wife is Chinese. He met her online in the late 90's, and she
moved with her young son to Wisconsin and married him around 2000.
I think my dad was looking for a docile women after his previous marriage and girlfriends,
and on the surface, Xue Lin seemed docile...in reality she is not docile, but subtle, a
characteristic I found true of her, her son and the Chinese people I have met thru them.
Nobody ever got my dad to work as hard or be as frugal as she!
They came over with money and bailed my dad out of a tax mess. She still owns apartment
buildings in China. Both are very hard working, smart and frugal, but not materialistic.
Jake (her son) and I ended up being pretty close. He received an MBA from the University
of Wisconsin and worked in the natural gas business in Texas before moving back to China
where I've had the pleasure of visiting him.
My impression of China and the Chinese is largely positive, the extreme work ethic can be
a bother given I am a pothead hippy slacker. There is a lot of optimism and energy there, it
makes the USA feel like a barbaric backwater country whose best days are past.
@66
Sounds like projection. You have nicely described my experience in the USA! Aside from my
union jobs, it has been kiss up and kick down...even self-employed.
"A certain fragrance of superstition and sentimentality also is always present, at various
degrees." Growing up in a small, conservative religious town, this is a great description of
my experience.
I will say, the general American population isn't docile, but are herded about like cattle
none the less. I'd also say the Chinese aren't so much docile as they are subtle, which I
believe is far more effective than rowdy but dumb.
The stereotype of the Chinese as the greedy merchant in SE Asia comes from the colonial
era. Western colonization of China created a Chinese comprador elite who was allowed many
commercial privileges within the Mainland (as middlemen) but also in the SE Asian region. As
every Latin American well know, comprador elites are the worst of the worst. No wonder the
peoples of Indonesia, Philippines etc. etc. see the Chinese as a negative force in their
countries.
The same is true for the stereotype of the Chinese as a mafioso in Latin America: the
Chinese who emigrated to Latin America are mainly triad and hyper-capitalists from Taiwan or
pre-communist China (who may or may not have indirectly come from Taiwan in later
decades).
The same is true for the stereotype of the Chinese as the arrogant, pro-laissez faire
upper middle class individualist in Canada, USA, Australia and Western Europe in the modern
times. They are most tourists and/or a selected bunch of upper middle class Chinese who are
lured into real estate schemes in those countries (Australia, Vancouver etc.).
As we can see, peoples make up stereotypes of other peoples based on small and heavily
skewed samples. That's why we have statistics, and they tell us the Chinese are one of the
most if not the most down-to-Earth, non-religious, socialist and tolerant peoples of the
world today.
In the end, it's all about money. And the US has an army that costs more than can be
plundered from the countries it occupies.
The US military costs about a trillion every year. There are no countries left to be
conquered by the US where that kind of treasure can be looted.
"... Clinton hollowed out his own country in order to completely remove all constraints (financial, mediatic, military). He doesn't get called out for it nearly enough in my opinion. ..."
"... Clinton was a particular type of low-class, sybaritic evil but he didn't have a strong USSR to contend with. Instead he had the drunken traitor Yeltsin dance for him like a bedraggled starving bear. ..."
"So when was this golden age? Under Reagan? Well, this is when the dismantling of the
inner core of the empire began."
Beg to differ. Reagan understood how to administer the US empire. He knew the risks of
overstretching it. He made the promise to the Soviets not to encroach on their sphere of
influence. He defended the high interest rates which strengthened the USD and which kept the
banking sector in check.
All of that went to hell with Bill Clinton:
He broke Reagan's promise and expanded NATO eastwards, he dismantled the Glass Steagall act
which led to a malignant hypergrowth of the banking sector, and he was the who introduced the
telecommunications act in 1996 which allowed for the concentration of corporate media in the
hands of the few.
Bill Clinton basically turned the empire into a rapacious and uncontrollable animal.
(Funny how noone here is talking about imprisoning him )
There is a silver lining to Bill C's blood-soaked administration. It was while he was in
power, that the Russians finally awoke from their 1990s stupor. They began to understand the
mortal danger they were facing, and they patriotically chose Putin to lead them in 1999.
– Reagan was a disgusting Russophobe and Serbophobe who proclaimed 10th April (the
founding of the Independent State of Croatia) a national holiday in California as governor.
Not surprising given that his was the most RC government ever – he also colluded with
the Polish anti-Christ to destroy the USSR. In the process he encouraged the German Nazis
(see visit to Bitburg) who then destroyed Yugoslavia.
– He brought the world to the brink of a nuclear holocaust that was prevented by a
vigilant Russian officer (in 1983?).
– He turbo-charged the power of corporations and decimated social structures and the
rights of the working class (the Americans are paying for this now).
This is not to say that the scumbag Clinton was good – after all he was trained at
Georgetown – that seminary for American murderers.
Thanks for this Ken. Good to know who Reagan really was!
To get back to your point about the "dismantling of the empire" Reagan, for all his
personal awfulness and recklessness (and subversiveness) was still more restrained than
Clinton. Clinton hollowed out his own country in order to completely remove all
constraints (financial, mediatic, military). He doesn't get called out for it nearly enough
in my opinion. I guess it's personal, after what he did to us.
Clinton was a particular type of low-class, sybaritic evil but he didn't have a strong
USSR to contend with. Instead he had the drunken traitor Yeltsin dance for him like a
bedraggled starving bear. Never again!
The "patriotism" of the previous establishment was bound up with their economic interests.
Once the USA dropped protectionism, the allure of cheap foreign labor (via immigration or
outsourcing) became too much for them and they abandoned the interests of their fellow
Americans to follow the profits.
Thanks for the Tralfamidor perspective. Those of us here on earth know that the US was
never a democracy and always existed as a mechanism for exploitation of everyone else by an
oligarchy.
The USSR was collapsed by traitors as a function of the US imperial drive to destroy them
economically, not because the people were enraged at the "hostile elite". The US henchmen in
the Kingdom in Riyadh pitched in to break the Soviet economy by destroying the Soviet
capacity to obtain foreign exchange.
High treason, where, what? Did I miss something then ? I think not. The Soviet Union was
doomed,
virtually bankrupt, its population queuing for almost everything, DDR likewise and Poland
too, I have seen it in all three places. Oh, you could get everything if you had dollars!
Poland 1975: 1 kg of Russian Caviar and 4 bottles of the best Crimean Champagne :$10 !
Russia: Brand new Makarow, 9 mm, and 100 shots $20 including nice shoulder holster too in
leather $30
But ordinary people did not have $, only the nomenclature had $. A totally corrupt and failed
system in all the Eastern block. I was there then, saw it, and I have not forgotten.
So it was high time for change, and yes it would be tough, but the eastern people are tough
people ( and hospitable, very indeed)so they stood it out.
Abe, take a trip to Russia and speak to some older people, so you may stop posting
nonsense!
Him and his underlings, along with its successor Yeltsin (died too soon, unfortunately)
are directly responsible for millions of dead and destroyed lives in Russia in the `90-ties.
But I sense you are from countries that now grow unhealthy and pathological hate towards
Russian people, so as far you are concerned, it was great period, right?
Blame the Soviets for the economy of places ravaged by war and sabotaged by the West?
Remember the Eastern Front suffered the majority of action. Russia itself suffered the worst
and had to rebuild more than anybody, whereas USA factories easily re-supplied Western
Europe.
Eastern Europeans better guard against being played by the West into fighting Russia
again. They allied with Western-financed Hitler the last time. So, I'm a little worried
they'll be conned again.
It is curious that in one of the articles MoA wrote that, in his opinion (which I share),
there are now two superpowers - the United States and Russia, while China is only on the way
to this.
But Chinese journalists think differently - for example, in this article (very controversial,
btw) the author asks the question "Russia has the potential to become a superpower,
what are the factors preventing it from doing this?" At the same time, apparently, the
journalist believes that the current superpowers are China and the United States, while
"something prevents" Russia from becoming such.
Funny.
Just one quote from the article:
The distance between Russia and the superpower is still very large, and not only because of
the country's "internal problems" - the United States is also constraining and restraining
Russia by all means. It is not easy to become a superpower.
"If you talk to older people in Russia they'll tell you how deeply they despise the
"marked one" as they call him."
I know there are multiple perspectives when assessing Gorbachev's legacy, but I also
encountered that reaction often during my time there by old and young alike. It was a
surprise to me as I had assumed he would be universally accepted in a positive light as he is
in the west.
Asking them why they felt that way, a common response was that he had been too trusting of
the US promises, which ushered in the looting and manipulation of the 90's. Many mentioned
Baker's promise to Gorbachev that if East Germany went to the west, NATO would not move "one
inch to the east", and Gorbachev's failure to get that in writing. (Not to say the US would
have honored it even then, of course, but at least some proof to show the west's
duplicity).
vk@8 "The USSR could've reformed and opened up like China did, and would be in a much better
situation than what really happened (Yeltsin's neoliberal genocide)."
This is nonsense. That's exactly what Gorbachev did. The relative stagnation of the USSR
turned into an economic catastrophe under Gorbachev who dismantled a still-functional
economy. Yeltsin's neoliberalism was a continuation of Gorbachev's economics. Yeltsin's
revolution was not to impose a new policy but to smash the opposition to the new policy, to
carry it out ruthlessly, to concentrate the theft of public property in Great Russian hands.
China's opening up was deliberately fostered by the western powers as a way of separating the
socialist powers. There was never going to be any such opening up with Europe, not for the
USSR. There wasn't in NEP in the Twenties. This absurd counterfactual misreads what happened
with the capitalist roaders in China.
There also seems to be some nonsense lurking about how the Cultural Revolution was a
gigantic catastrophe. Of course, though no one cares to notice, if this was true, then India
would have had all those years to race ahead of China, not being cursed with such a
nightmare. In truth, the Cultural Revolution brought many benefits to the countryside in
particular, and still progressed the economy as a whole. Then after the murderous Deng took
over, there wasn't any magical Great Leap Forward on IOUs to Imperialism as he promised. For
years and years, the wonders of reform and opening up delivered not much faster (at all?)
than the previous system. Not even the notorious Southern Tour was so miraculous. The failure
to deliver on his overblown promises is why the students at Tien An Men square were so
worried about getting good jobs commensurate with their higher elite status, reaffirmed by
Deng. Only after decades did the economic conjuncture finally lead to rapid growth...but at a
tremendous social cost still denied by too many. The iron rice bowl was broken long before
the privilege of working for a capitalist firm started to really pay.
is a Serbian-American journalist, blogger and translator, who wrote a regular column for
Antiwar.com from 2000 to 2015, and is now senior writer at RT. Follow him on Twitter @NebojsaMalic 22 Dec, 2020 12:08 Joe
Biden, set to be the oldest-ever US president, is actually on the younger side of people
currently running the American political establishment, who show no sign of wanting to ever
step aside for another generation.
It is often overlooked that Donald Trump currently holds the distinction of being the
oldest-ever US president, being 70 at the time of his inauguration. Biden will take that trophy
as well if he's inaugurated in January 2021, having turned 78 last month. Even so, he is
actually younger than the current leaders of the House and the Senate!
Though all major power brokers in Washington are older than the "gerontocracy" that
ruled the Soviet Union in the 1970s and the 1980s, you won't hear the US mainstream media make
the comparison, as it wouldn't fit their Narrative.
Sure, there has been some carefully calibrated talk about the "cognitive decline" of
Senator Dianne Feinstein, who is 87. But Feinstein is from an overwhelmingly Democrat state and
she can be easily replaced at the same time as Kamala Harris, Biden's running mate who still
hasn't resigned her Senate seat.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-California) is 80, and has raised eyebrows herself with the
whole "Good Morning. Sunday Morning" glitch-in-the-Matrix behavior during a TV
appearance in September.
Way back in 2018 , Pelosi
insisted that any talk about wanting someone younger in the leadership position was
"sexist," and went on to ruthlessly crush any opposition to her getting the gavel
– and the power that went with it – inside the party. In the same interview, Pelosi
blanked out on the name of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), calling him
"whatshisname."
Born several months ahead of Biden in 1942, McConnell is 78 himself. He had a bout with
polio when very young, and though successfully treated, he's had difficulty climbing stairs all
his life. While he hasn't shown any signs of cognitive decline, his political choices as of
late have certainly caused some Republicans to wonder if he's truly the legislative genius his
supporters make him out to be.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) is "only" 70, but has actually been
in Congress longer than McConnell, if one counts his 18 years in the House before he got
elected to the Senate in 1998.
Only House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, 55, technically qualifies as a member of
'Generation X' rather than a Baby Boomer. Nor does he have any Cold War political baggage like
the rest, having been in the House since only 2006. If the Republicans somehow win the House
majority in 2022, he might gain more influence – but that's speculation at this point, on
both counts.
Meanwhile, the young activist House members who came in with 2018's "Blue Wave," such
as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York), are being kept in check by the old guard. Just last
week, AOC was denied a spot on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, thwarting her plans to
push for her "Green New Deal" proposal.
Compare this state of US politics with the notorious "gerontocracy" of the Soviet
Union. Three aging Soviet leaders died in quick succession between 1982 and 1985, prompting
then-US president Ronald Reagan to say "How am I supposed to get anyplace with the Russians
if they keep dying on me?" Yet Reagan was 74 at the time, older than all three.
Leonid Brezhnev was 54 when he took over the Communist Party in 1964. For the sake of
political stability, he remained a figurehead after his 1975 stroke and "ruled" the USSR
until his death in 1982, as no one in the party could agree on who ought to succeed him. His
18-year tenure was later dubbed the "Brezhnev stagnation."
Former KGB chief Yuri Andropov, part of a triumvirate running things for the better part of
Brezhnev's latter years, died himself at the age of 70 in 1984. He had led the Soviet Union for
less than 16 months. Konstantin Chernenko, 73, took over from Andropov – and died in
March 1985, after only 13 months in charge. His successor, Mikhail Gorbachev, was 54 at the
time, two years younger than Kamala Harris is now.
In one of those strange intricacies of the American political system, Harris went from
getting zero delegates in the Democrats' nomination process and dropping out before the first
primary to being widely expected to take over from Biden sooner rather than later. One might
say her relative youth and being a 'Woman Of Color' – an identity politics feature
increasingly important to the Democrats – might spell the end of the Boomer
dominance.
The thing to keep in mind, however, is that the "young reformer" Gorbachev managed to
run the Soviet Union into the ground within five short years. In 1991, the old guard tried a
military coup against him. Though Gorbachev survived the coup, the Soviet Union didn't. By the
end of that year, the USSR had "dissolved," breaking up along Communist-drawn boundaries
into independent and quasi-independent states.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
UKCitizen 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 08:34 AM
Not only American politics but much of USA public life too. I believe one facet of rule by a
gerontocracy is maintenance of the status quo; another is less control over younger and more
vigorous members of society. The two come together in the rise of Silicon Valley and
dominance of USA affairs by corporate interests. But nothing lasts forever and there are long
cycles too. Little will change in the short term but I predict at least four years of more
serious decline in America. The turning point will be final disillusionment with liberal-left
politics (see K/r theory) and the arrival of some younger leaders, not yet known.
Liberal-leftism will fail eventually for the simple reason it is founded in utopian like
fantasies, disconnection with the real life (however harsh,and probably because it is harsh)
but above all an attempt to spread finite resources veneer thin and remove any effort to get
them (free everything and equality for all). America will come round eventually but it will
be painful and will require it to revise much of its political structure to becoming a true
democracy, which even I have realised it isn't, and probably only has been fleetingly since
its founding. K/r theory is magnificently expounded in the 'The Evolutionary Psychology
Behind Politics' and long cycles in 'Biohistory'. The former rings true on just about every
page.
KarlthePoet UKCitizen 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 11:35 AM
America is collapsing because its foundation is solidly built on lies. The US government and
Wall Street are ultimately being controlled by the Jewish Banking Cartel. It cannot be
denied. Take the Federal Reserve away and America collapses overnight. Trillions upon
Trillions of dollars that are being printed out of thin air are keeping the failed system
afloat, for now. A massive global economic collapse is imminent. Just watch. Happy Holidays
Thomas74 17 hours ago 23 Dec, 2020 03:46 AM
There are clear parallels between the USSR and USA. The question is whether the leadership in
the USA's leader class has the same self-awareness that arose at the top of the USSR in its
last years. Also whether the American people will tolerate the economic hardship that the
former Soviet peoples endured in the transition. Is this what we're seeing now with the
coronavirus situation? A gradual taking down of expectations in the West behind the
smokescreen of a virus?
Anubis64 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 12:24 PM
Dear Nebojsa, So what? Andropov would have made a first-class statesman (give or take his
infatuation with technocracy). Brezhnev was not only a hero but a capable statesman whose era
is remembered with nostalgia. Let us focus on the fact that Russia's responses to the blows
coming hard and fast are rather passive and lacking any historical vision. It is not age but
will that matters.
Anubis64 Anubis64 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 12:53 PM
Then, a young scoundrel was brought in by the shady Yakovlev character and destroyed the
greatest country in the world in less than a decade. May the same happen to the insufferable
Americans.
Krieger 1 hour ago 23 Dec, 2020 08:34 PM
I think this is mostly apples and oranges. In the USSR, the "old guard" were patriots who
wanted to preserve their country. The "young reformers" were traitors who wanted to destroy
their own country to benefit their Western masters and personally enrich themselves. In the
USA, on the other hand, both the young and old politicians are totally corrupt and want to
maintain the status quo, which is slowly destroying the country from within.
Mira Golub 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 10:17 AM
America is ruled by mobster clans, the puppets are indeed resemble walking dead. Russian
imbecile liberal pro Western 2% 'opposition' though are getting their jollies by calling
Putin who is 68 'grandpa'. Bunch of degenerates.
Marek Weglinski 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 08:25 AM
Maybe it's a telltale that the Soviet-like demise for the US is near. Hopefully the American
empire will not come to a SUPERNOVA-like ending (inflicting great damage to the rest of the
world), before turning itself into a dwarf.
Ohhho Marek Weglinski 1 day ago 22 Dec, 2020 11:37 AM
The Evil empire will implode and take the rest of the world down with it, that's the problem!
USSR had it's own economic system pretty much isolated from the Western world, and when that
system collapsed the effect was felt all around the satellite countries for years!
"... Political collapse: obviously there wasn't really a functional government at all for a period of time in the nineties. Lots of American consultants running around and privatizing things in a fashion that created a lot of incredibly corrupt, super-rich oligarchs who then fled with their money, a lot of them. ..."
Welcome back to Turning Hard Times into Good Times. I'm your host Jay Taylor. I'm really
pleased to have with me once again Dmitry Orlov.
Dmitry was born and grew up in Leningrad, but has lived in the United States. He moved
here in the mid-seventies. He has since gone back to Russia, where he is living now.
But Dmitry was an eyewitness to the Soviet collapse over several extended visits to his
Russian homeland between the eighties and mid-nineties. He is an engineer who has contributed
to fields as diverse as high-energy Physics and Internet Security, as well as a leading Peak
Oil theorist. He is the author of Reinventing Collapse: The Soviet Example and American
Prospects (2008) and The Five Stages of Collapse: Survivors' Toolkit (2013).
Welcome, Dmitry, and thank you so much for joining us again.
A: Great to be on your program again, Jay.
Q: It's really good to hear your voice. I know we had you on [the program] back in 2014.
It's been a long time -- way too long, as far as I'm concerned. In that discussion we talked
about the five stages of collapse that you observed in the fall of the USSR. Could you review
them really quickly, and compare them to what you are seeing, what you have witnessed and
observed in the United States as you lived here, and of course in your post now in
Russia.
A: Yes. The five stages of collapse as I defined them were financial, commercial,
political, social and cultural. I observed that the first three, in Russia. The finance
collapsed because the Soviet Union basically ran out of money. Commercial collapse because
industry, Soviet industry, fell apart because it was distributed among fifteen Soviet
socialist republics, and when the Soviet Union fell apart all of the supply chains broke
down.
Political collapse: obviously there wasn't really a functional government at all for a
period of time in the nineties. Lots of American consultants running around and privatizing
things in a fashion that created a lot of incredibly corrupt, super-rich oligarchs who then
fled with their money, a lot of them.
Surprisingly, social and cultural collapse didn't really get very far until Russia started
regaining its health. Some of the other Soviet socialist republics are in the throes of
full-on social and cultural collapse, but Russia avoided this fate.....
Russia itself did not sell out. It was the idiotic drunkard Yeltsin, who was surrounded by
the Jewish Oligarchs who positioned themselves to take over state industrial assets in
cahoots with financial assistance from abroad and who happened to despise the Narod, the
Russian people. When Putin took over he made deals with some of these parasites, but threw
out the worst ones and gradually was able to restore the nation and its pride.
Yes, but main reason Neocons hate Russia is that Putin imprisoned and or dispossessed many
of the criminal Jewish oligarchs that had robbed Russia blind under Yeltsin.
Their ransacking of the country was stopped by Putin.
Hence, the hatred.
His support for the Russian Orthodox faith also does not sit well with the Neocons.
A very good article. A better title would be "How neoliberalism collapsed" Any religious doctrine sonner or later collased
under the weight of corruption of its prisets and unrealistic assumptions about the society. Neoliberalism in no expection as in
heart it is secular religion based on deification of markets.
He does not discuss the role of Harvard Mafiosi in destruction of Russian (and other xUSSR republics) economy in 1990th, mass
looting, empowerment of people (with pensioners experiencing WWII level of starvation) and creation of mafia capitalism on post
Soviet state. But the point he made about the process are right. Yeltsin mafia, like Yeltsin himself, were the product of USA and
GB machinations
Notable quotes:
"... If the US (and the UK, if as usual we tag along) approach the relationship with Beijing with anything like the combination of arrogance, ignorance, greed, criminality, bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which western elites managed the period after the Cold War, then we risk losing the competition and endangering the world. ..."
"... One of the most malign effects of western victory in 1989-91 was to drown out or marginalise criticism of what was already a deeply flawed western social and economic model. In the competition with the USSR, it was above all the visible superiority of the western model that eventually destroyed Soviet communism from within. ..."
"... These beliefs interacted to produce a dominant atmosphere of "there is no alternative," which made it impossible and often in effect forbidden to conduct a proper public debate on the merits of the big western presumptions, policies or plans of the era ..."
"... This was a sentiment I encountered again and again (if not often so frankly expressed) in western establishment institutions in that era: in economic journals if it was suggested that rapid privatisation in the former USSR would lead to massive corruption, social resentment and political reaction; in security circles, if anyone dared to question the logic of Nato expansion ..."
"... Accompanying this overwhelmingly dominant political and economic ideology was an American geopolitical vision equally grandiose in ambition and equally blind to the lessons of history. This was summed up in the memorandum on "Defence Planning Guidance 1994-1999," drawn up in April 1992 for the Bush Senior administration by Under-Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and subsequently leaked to the media ..."
"... By claiming for the US the right of unilateral intervention anywhere in the world and denying other major powers a greater role in their regions, this strategy essentially extended the Monroe Doctrine (which effectively defined the "western hemisphere" as the US sphere of influence) to the entire planet: an ambition greater than that of any previous power. The British Empire at its height knew that it could never intervene unilaterally on the continent of Europe or in Central America. The most megalomaniac of European rulers understood that other great powers with influence in their own areas of the world would always exist. ..."
"... "A stable and healthy polity and economy must be based on some minimal moral values" ..."
"... Many liberals gave the impression of complete indifference to the resulting immiseration of the Russian population in these years. At a meeting of the Carnegie Endowment in Washington that I attended later, former Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar boasted to an applauding US audience of how he had destroyed the Russian military industrial complex. The fact that this also destroyed the livelihoods of tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians was not mentioned. ..."
"... This attitude was fed by contempt on the part of the educated classes of Moscow and St Petersburg for ordinary Russians, who were dubbed Homo Sovieticus and treated as an inferior species whose loathsome culture was preventing the liberal elites from taking their rightful place among the "civilised" nations of the west. This frame of mind was reminiscent of the traditional attitude of white elites in Latin America towards the Indio and Mestizo majorities in their countries. ..."
"... I vividly remember one Russian liberal journalist state his desire to fire machine guns into crowds of elderly Russians who joined Communist demonstrations to protest about the collapse of their pensions. The response of the western journalists present was that this was perhaps a little bit excessive, but to be excused since the basic sentiment was correct. ..."
"... If the post-Cold War world order was a form of US imperialism, it now looks like an empire in which rot in the over-extended periphery has spread to the core. The economic and social patterns of 1990s Russia and Ukraine have come back to haunt the west, though so far thank God in milder form. The massive looting of Russian state property and the systematic evasion of taxes by Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs was only possible with the help of western banks, which transferred the proceeds to the west and the Caribbean. This crime was euphemised in the western discourse (naturally including the Economist ) as "capital flight." ..."
"... The indifference of Russian elites to the suffering of the Russian population has found a milder echo in the neglect of former industrial regions across Britain, Western Europe and the US that did so much to produce the votes for Brexit, for Trump and for populist nationalist parties in Europe. The catastrophic plunge in Russian male life expectancy in the 1990s has found its echo in the unprecedented decline in white working-class male life expectancy in the US. ..."
"... Perhaps the greatest lesson of the period after the last Cold War is that in the end, a stable and healthy polity and economy must be based on some minimal moral values. ..."
"... Those analysing the connection between Russia and Trump's administration have looked in the wrong place. The explanation of Trump's success is not that Putin somehow mesmerised American voters in 2016. It is that populations abandoned by their elites are liable to extreme political responses; and that societies whose economic elites have turned ethics into a joke should not be surprised if their political leaders too become scoundrels. ..."
A s the US prepares to plunge into a new cold war with China in which its chances do not
look good, it's an appropriate time to examine how we went so badly wrong after "victory" in
the last Cold War. Looking back 30 years from the grim perspective of 2020, it is a challenge
even for those who were adults at the time to remember just how triumphant the west appeared in
the wake of the collapse of Soviet communism and the break-up of the USSR itself.
Today, of the rich fruits promised by that great victory, only wretched fragments remain.
The much-vaunted "peace dividend," savings from military spending, was squandered. The
opportunity to use the resources freed up to spread prosperity and deal with urgent social
problems was wasted, and -- even worse -- the US military budget is today higher than ever.
Attempts to mitigate the apocalyptic threat of climate change have fallen far short of what the
scientific consensus deems to be urgently necessary. The chance to solve the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict and stabilise the Middle East was thrown away even before 9/11 and
the disastrous US response. The lauded "new world order" of international harmony and
co-operation -- heralded by the elder George Bush after the first Gulf War -- is a tragic joke.
Britain's European dream has been destroyed, and geopolitical stability on the European
continent has been lost due chiefly to new and mostly unnecessary tension with Moscow. The one
previously solid-seeming achievement, the democratisation of Eastern Europe, is looking
questionable, as Poland and Hungary (see Samira Shackle, p20) sink into semi-authoritarian
nationalism.
Russia after the Cold War was a shambles and today it remains a weak economy with a limited
role on the world stage, concerned mainly with retaining some of its traditional areas of
influence. China is a vastly more formidable competitor. If the US (and the UK, if as usual we
tag along) approach the relationship with Beijing with anything like the combination of
arrogance, ignorance, greed, criminality, bigotry, hypocrisy and incompetence with which
western elites managed the period after the Cold War, then we risk losing the competition and
endangering the world.
One of the most malign effects of western victory in 1989-91 was to drown out or marginalise
criticism of what was already a deeply flawed western social and economic model. In the
competition with the USSR, it was above all the visible superiority of the western model that
eventually destroyed Soviet communism from within. Today, the superiority of the western model
to the Chinese model is not nearly so evident to most of the world's population; and it is on
successful western domestic reform that victory in the competition with China will depend.
Hubris
Western triumph and western failure were deeply intertwined. The very completeness of the
western victory both obscured its nature and legitimised all the western policies of the day,
including ones that had nothing to do with the victory over the USSR, and some that proved
utterly disastrous.
As Alexander Zevin has written of the house journal of Anglo-American elites, the
revolutions in Eastern Europe "turbocharged the neoliberal dynamic at the Economist ,
and seemed to stamp it with an almost providential seal." In retrospect, the magazine's 1990s
covers have a tragicomic appearance, reflecting a degree of faith in the rightness and
righteousness of neoliberal capitalism more appropriate to a religious cult.
These beliefs interacted to produce a dominant atmosphere of "there is no alternative,"
which made it impossible and often in effect forbidden to conduct a proper public debate on the
merits of the big western presumptions, policies or plans of the era. As a German official told
me when I expressed some doubt about the wisdom of rapid EU enlargement, "In my ministry we are
not even allowed to think about that."
This was a sentiment I encountered again and again (if not often so frankly expressed) in
western establishment institutions in that era: in economic journals if it was suggested that
rapid privatisation in the former USSR would lead to massive corruption, social resentment and
political reaction; in security circles, if anyone dared to question the logic of Nato
expansion; and almost anywhere if it was pointed out that the looting of former Soviet
republics was being assiduously encouraged and profited from by western banks, and regarded
with benign indifference by western governments.
The atmosphere of the time is (nowadays notoriously) summed up in Francis Fukuyama's The
End of History , which essentially predicted that western liberal capitalist democracy
would now be the only valid and successful economic and political model for all time. In fact,
what victory in the Cold War ended was not history but the study of history by western
elites.
"The US claiming the right of unilateral intervention anywhere in the world was an
ambition greater than that of any previous power"
A curious feature of 1990s capitalist utopian thought was that it misunderstood the
essential nature of capitalism, as revealed by its real (as opposed to faith-based) history.
One is tempted to say that Fukuyama should have paid more attention to Karl Marx and a famous
passage in The Communist Manifesto :
"The bourgeoisie [ie capitalism] cannot exist without constantly revolutionising the
instruments of production, and thereby the relations of production, and with them the whole
relations of society All fixed, fast-frozen relations with their train of ancient and venerable
prejudices and opinions, are swept away; all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can
ossify the bourgeoisie has through its exploitation of the world market drawn from under the
feet of industry the national ground on which it stood. All old established national industries
have been destroyed or are daily being destroyed "
Then again, Marx himself made exactly the same mistake in his portrayal of a permanent
socialist utopia after the overthrow of capitalism. The point is that utopias, being perfect,
are unchanging, whereas continuous and radical change, driven by technological development, is
at the heart of capitalism -- and, according to Marx, of the whole course of human history. Of
course, those who believed in a permanently successful US "Goldilocks economy" -- not too hot,
and not too cold -- also managed to forget 300 years of periodic capitalist economic
crises.
Though much mocked at the time, Fukuyama's vision came to dominate western thinking. This
was summed up in the universally employed but absurd phrases "Getting to Denmark" (as if Russia
and China were ever going to resemble Denmark) and "The path to democracy and the free
market" (my italics), which became the mantra of the new and lucrative academic-bureaucratic
field of "transitionology." Absurd, because the merest glance at modern history reveals
multiple different "paths" to -- and away from -- democracy and capitalism, not to mention
myriad routes that have veered towards one at the same time as swerving away from the
other.
Accompanying this overwhelmingly dominant political and economic ideology was an American
geopolitical vision equally grandiose in ambition and equally blind to the lessons of history.
This was summed up in the memorandum on "Defence Planning Guidance 1994-1999," drawn up in
April 1992 for the Bush Senior administration by Under-Secretary of Defence Paul Wolfowitz and
Lewis "Scooter" Libby, and subsequently leaked to the media. Its central message was:
"The US must show the leadership necessary to establish and protect a new order that holds
the promise of convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or
pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests We must maintain the
mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global
role "
By claiming for the US the right of unilateral intervention anywhere in the world and
denying other major powers a greater role in their regions, this strategy essentially extended
the Monroe Doctrine (which effectively defined the "western hemisphere" as the US sphere of
influence) to the entire planet: an ambition greater than that of any previous power. The
British Empire at its height knew that it could never intervene unilaterally on the continent
of Europe or in Central America. The most megalomaniac of European rulers understood that other
great powers with influence in their own areas of the world would always exist.
While that 1992 Washington paper spoke of the "legitimate interests" of other states, it
clearly implied that it would be Washington that would define what interests were legitimate,
and how they could be pursued. And once again, though never formally adopted, this "doctrine"
became in effect the standard operating procedure of subsequent administrations. In the early
2000s, when its influence reached its most dangerous height, military and security elites would
couch it in the terms of "full spectrum dominance." As the younger President Bush declared in
his State of the Union address in January 2002, which put the US on the road to the invasion of
Iraq: "By the grace of God, America won the Cold War A world once divided into two armed camps
now recognises one sole and pre-eminent power, the United States of America."
Nemesis
Triumphalism led US policymakers, and their transatlantic followers, to forget one cardinal
truth about geopolitical and military power: that in the end it is not global and absolute, but
local and relative. It is the amount of force or influence a state wants to bring to bear in a
particular place and on a -particular issue, relative to the power that a rival state is
willing and able to bring to bear. The truth of this has been shown repeatedly over the past
generation. For all America's overwhelming superiority on paper, it has turned out that many
countries have greater strength than the US in particular places: Russia in Georgia and
Ukraine, Russia and Iran in Syria, China in the South China Sea, and even Pakistan in southern
Afghanistan.
American over-confidence, accepted by many Europeans and many Britons especially, left the
US in a severely weakened condition to conduct what should have been clear as far back as the
1990s to be the great competition of the future -- that between Washington and Beijing.
On the one hand, American moves to extend Nato to the Baltics and then (abortively) on to
Ukraine and Georgia, and to abolish Russian influence and destroy Russian allies in the Middle
East, inevitably produced a fierce and largely successful Russian nationalist reaction. Within
Russia, the US threat to its national interests helped to consolidate and legitimise Putin's
control. Internationally, it ensured that Russia would swallow its deep-seated fears of China
and become a valuable partner of Beijing.
On the other hand, the benign and neglectful way in which Washington regarded the rise of
China in the generation after the Cold War (for example, the blithe decision to allow China to
join the World Trade Organisation) was also rooted in ideological arrogance. Western
triumphalism meant that most of the US elites were convinced that as a result of economic
growth, the Chinese Communist state would either democratise or be overthrown; and that China
would eventually have to adopt the western version of economics or fail economically. This was
coupled with the belief that good relations with China could be predicated on China accepting a
so-called "rules-based" international order in which the US set the rules while also being free
to break them whenever it wished; something that nobody with the slightest knowledge of Chinese
history should
have believed.
Throughout, the US establishment discourse (Democrat as much as Republican) has sought to
legitimise American global hegemony by invoking the promotion of liberal democracy. At the same
time, the supposedly intrinsic connection between economic change, democracy and peace was
rationalised by cheerleaders such as the New York Times 's indefatigable Thomas
Friedman, who advanced the (always absurd, and now flatly and repeatedly falsified) "Golden
Arches theory of Conflict
Prevention." This vulgarised version of Democratic Peace Theory pointed out that two countries
with McDonald's franchises had never been to war. The humble and greasy American burger was
turned into a world-historical symbol of the buoyant modern middle classes with too much to
lose to countenance war.
Various equally hollow theories postulated cast-iron connections between free markets and
guaranteed property rights on the one hand, and universal political rights and freedoms on the
other, despite the fact that even within the west, much of political history can be
characterised as the fraught and complex brokering of accommodations between these two sets of
things.
And indeed, since the 1990s democracy has not advanced in the world as a whole, and belief
in the US promotion of democracy has been discredited by US patronage of the authoritarian and
semi-authoritarian regimes in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, India and elsewhere. Of the predominantly
Middle Eastern and South Asian students whom I teach at Georgetown University in Qatar, not one
-- even among the liberals -- believes that the US is sincerely committed to spreading
democracy; and, given their own regions' recent history, there is absolutely no reason why they
should believe this.
The one great triumph of democratisation coupled with free market reform was -- or appeared
to be -- in the former communist states of Central and Eastern Europe, and this success was
endlessly cited as the model for political and economic reform across
the globe.
But the portrayal of East European reform in the west failed to recognise the central role
of local nationalism. Once again, to talk of this at the time was to find oneself in effect
excluded from polite society, because to do so called into question the self-evident
superiority and universal appeal of liberal reform. The overwhelming belief of western
establishments was that nationalism was a superstition that was fast losing its hold on people
who, given the choice, could everywhere be relied on to act like rational consumers, rather
than citizens rooted in one particular land.
The more excitable technocrats imagined that nation state itself (except the US of course)
was destined to wither away. This was also the picture reflected back to western observers and
analysts by liberal reformers across the region, who whether or not they were genuinely
convinced of this, knew what their western sponsors wanted to hear. Western economic and
cultural hegemony produced a sort of mirror game, a copulation of illusions in which local
informants provided false images to the west, which then reflected them back to the east, and
so on.
Always the nation
Yet one did not have to travel far outside the centres of Eastern European cities to find
large parts of populations outraged by the moral and cultural changes ordained by the EU, the
collapse of social services, and the (western-indulged) seizure of public property by former
communist elites. So why did Eastern Europeans swallow the whole western liberal package of the
time? They did so precisely because of their nationalism, which persuaded them that if they did
not pay the cultural and economic price of entry into the EU and Nato, they would sooner or
later fall back under the dreaded hegemony of Moscow. For them, unwanted reform was the price
that the nation had to pay for US protection. Not surprisingly, once membership of these
institutions was secured, a powerful populist and nationalist backlash set in.
Western blindness to the power of nationalism has had several bad consequences for western
policy, and the cohesion of "the west." In Eastern Europe, it would in time lead to the
politically almost insane decision of the EU to try to order the local peoples, with their
deeply-rooted ethnic nationalism and bitter memories of outside dictation, to accept large
numbers of Muslim refugees. The backlash then became conjoined with the populist reactions in
Western Europe, which led to Brexit and the sharp decline of centrist parties across the
EU.
More widely, this blindness to the power of nationalism led the US grossly to underestimate
the power of nationalist sentiment in Russia, China and Iran, and contributed to the US attempt
to use "democratisation" as a means to overthrow their regimes. All that this has succeeded in
doing is to help the regimes concerned turn nationalist sentiment against local liberals, by
accusing them of being US stooges.
"A stable and healthy polity and economy must be based on
some minimal moral values"
Russian liberals in the 1990s were mostly not really US agents as such, but the collapse of
Communism led some to a blind adulation of everything western and to identify unconditionally
with US policies. In terms of public image, this made them look like western lackeys; in terms
of policy, it led to the adoption of the economic "shock therapy" policies advocated by the
west. Combined with monstrous corruption and the horribly disruptive collapse of the Soviet
single market, this had a shattering effect on Russian industry and the living standards of
ordinary Russians.
Many liberals gave the impression of complete indifference to the resulting immiseration of
the Russian population in these years. At a meeting of the Carnegie Endowment in Washington
that I attended later, former Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar boasted to an applauding US audience
of how he had destroyed the Russian military industrial complex. The fact that this also
destroyed the livelihoods of tens of millions of Russians and Ukrainians was not mentioned.
This attitude was fed by contempt on the part of the educated classes of Moscow and St
Petersburg for ordinary Russians, who were dubbed Homo Sovieticus and treated as an
inferior species whose loathsome culture was preventing the liberal elites from taking their
rightful place among the "civilised" nations of the west. This frame of mind was reminiscent of
the traditional attitude of white elites in Latin America towards the Indio and Mestizo
majorities in their countries.
I vividly remember one Russian liberal journalist state his desire to fire machine guns into
crowds of elderly Russians who joined Communist demonstrations to protest about the collapse of
their pensions. The response of the western journalists present was that this was perhaps a
little bit excessive, but to be excused since the basic sentiment was correct.
The Russian liberals of the 1990s were crazy to reveal this contempt to the people whose
votes they needed to win. So too was Hillary Clinton, with her disdain for the "basket of
deplorables" in the 2016 election, much of the Remain camp in the years leading up to Brexit,
and indeed the European elites in the way they rammed through the Maastricht Treaty and the
euro in the 1990s.
If the post-Cold War world order was a form of US imperialism, it now looks like an empire
in which rot in the over-extended periphery has spread to the core. The economic and social
patterns of 1990s Russia and Ukraine have come back to haunt the west, though so far thank God
in milder form. The massive looting of Russian state property and the systematic evasion of
taxes by Russian and Ukrainian oligarchs was only possible with the help of western banks,
which transferred the proceeds to the west and the Caribbean. This crime was euphemised in the
western discourse (naturally including the Economist ) as "capital flight."
Peter Mandelson qualified his famous remark that the Blair government was "intensely relaxed
about people becoming filthy rich" with the words "as long as they pay their taxes." The whole
point, however, about the filthy Russian, Ukrainian, Nigerian, Pakistani and other money that
flowed to and through London was not just that so much of it was stolen, but that it was
escaping taxation, thereby harming the populations at home twice over. The infamous euphemism
"light-touch regulation" was in effect a charter
for this.
In a bitter form of poetic justice, however, "light-touch regulation" paved the way for the
2008 economic crisis in the west itself, and western economic elites too (especially in the US)
would also seize this opportunity to move their money into tax havens. This has done serious
damage to state revenues, and to the fundamental faith of ordinary people in the west that the
rich are truly subject to the same laws as them.
The indifference of Russian elites to the suffering of the Russian population has found a
milder echo in the neglect of former industrial regions across Britain, Western Europe and the
US that did so much to produce the votes for Brexit, for Trump and for populist nationalist
parties in Europe. The catastrophic plunge in Russian male life expectancy in the 1990s has
found its echo in the unprecedented decline in white working-class male life expectancy in the
US.
Perhaps the greatest lesson of the period after the last Cold War is that in the end, a
stable and healthy polity and economy must be based on some minimal moral values. To say this
to western economists, businessmen and financial journalists in the 1990s was to receive the
kindly contempt usually accorded to religious cranks. The only value recognised was shareholder
value, a currency in which the crimes of the Russian oligarchs could be excused because their
stolen companies had "added value." Any concern about duty to the Russian people as a whole, or
the fact that tolerance of these crimes would make it grotesque to demand honesty of policemen
or civil servants, were dismissed as irrelevant sentimentality.
Bringing it all back home
We in the west are living with the consequences of a generation of such attitudes. Western
financial elites have mostly not engaged in outright illegality; but then again, they usually
haven't needed to, since governments have made it easy for them to abide by the letter of the
law while tearing its spirit to pieces. We are belatedly recognising that, as Franklin Foer
wrote in the Atlantic last year: "New York, Los Angeles and Miami have joined London as
the world's most desired destinations for laundered money. This boom has enriched the American
elites who have enabled it -- and it has degraded the nation's political and social mores in
the process. While everyone else was heralding an emergent globalist world that would take on
the best values of America, [Richard] Palmer [a former CIA station chief in Moscow] had
glimpsed the dire risk of the opposite: that the values of the kleptocrats would become
America's own. This grim vision is now nearing fruition."
Those analysing the connection between Russia and Trump's administration have looked in the
wrong place. The explanation of Trump's success is not that Putin somehow mesmerised American
voters in 2016. It is that populations abandoned by their elites are liable to extreme
political responses; and that societies whose economic elites have turned ethics into a joke
should not be surprised if their political leaders too become scoundrels.
@onebornfree
w.britannica.com/topic/commonwealth-political-science">https://www.britannica.com/topic/commonwealth-political-science
What is labelled socialism today is nowhere near what the original socialists would consider
socialism, which is closer to the co-operative movement and anarchy than communism.
On the other hand, Marxism (communism) is about complete state control and was
international in scope. One (of many) reason for the breakdown of the USSR, was that it was,
in fact, becoming socialistic in many countries, starting with Hungary in 1956 then
Czechoslovakia in 1968 becoming nationalist. Even Russia was becoming more nationalistic.
@Druid
unknown in Russia 1917. It wasn't really understood. In contrast Neo-Bolshevism USA 2020 has
the prior example of Bolshevism Russia 1917 to learn from and check the mechanism.
– The Russian population 1917 held some arms (which were immediately made illegal
– retention carrying the death penalty). But nothing at all like the vast armoury
presently held by the US public.
– The Bolsheviks successful subverted the demoralized and badly organized Russian
Imperial Army (at least in Petrograd where it mattered). The US military is in a much better
state, and is maybe not so attracted by SJW/BLM/Antifa (middle and lower ranks).
@onebornfree
w.britannica.com/topic/commonwealth-political-science">https://www.britannica.com/topic/commonwealth-political-science
What is labelled socialism today is nowhere near what the original socialists would consider
socialism, which is closer to the co-operative movement and anarchy than communism.
On the other hand, Marxism (communism) is about complete state control and was
international in scope. One (of many) reason for the breakdown of the USSR, was that it was,
in fact, becoming socialistic in many countries, starting with Hungary in 1956 then
Czechoslovakia in 1968 becoming nationalist. Even Russia was becoming more nationalistic.
@Druid
unknown in Russia 1917. It wasn't really understood. In contrast Neo-Bolshevism USA 2020 has
the prior example of Bolshevism Russia 1917 to learn from and check the mechanism.
– The Russian population 1917 held some arms (which were immediately made illegal
– retention carrying the death penalty). But nothing at all like the vast armoury
presently held by the US public.
– The Bolsheviks successful subverted the demoralized and badly organized Russian
Imperial Army (at least in Petrograd where it mattered). The US military is in a much better
state, and is maybe not so attracted by SJW/BLM/Antifa (middle and lower ranks).
Operation Cyclone was the code name for the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA)
program to arm and finance the mujahideen (jihadists) in Afghanistan from 1979 to 1989, prior
to and during the military intervention by the USSR in support of its client, the Democratic
Republic of Afghanistan. The mujahideen were also supported by Britain's MI6, who conducted
separate covert actions. The program leaned heavily towards supporting militant Islamic groups
that were favored by the regime of Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in neighboring Pakistan, rather than
other, less ideological Afghan resistance groups that had also been fighting the
Marxist-oriented Democratic Republic of Afghanistan regime since before the Soviet
intervention.[1]
Operation Cyclone was one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever
undertaken.[2] Funding officially began with $695,000 in 1979,[3][4] was increased dramatically
to $20–$30 million per year in 1980, and rose to $630 million per year in 1987,[1][5][6]
described as the "biggest bequest to any Third World insurgency."[7] Funding continued (albeit
reduced) after the 1989 Soviet withdrawal as the mujahideen continued to battle the forces of
President Mohammad Najibullah's army during the Afghan Civil War (1989–1992).[8]
"... What Catan established is that, at the time his helicopter was blown out of the sky, Curtis, lawyer both to the Menatep oligarchs and Berezovsky, had started 'singing sweetly' to what was the the National Criminal Intelligence Service. ..."
"... And what he was telling them about the activities of Khodorkovsky and his associates would have been 'music to the ears' of Putin and his associates. ..."
"... Ironically, she inadvertently demonstrates a crucial element in this story – the extent to which not only British, but American, intelligence/foreign policy/law enforcement agencies 'got into bed' with the members of the 'semibankirshchina' of the 'Nineties who refused to accept the terms Putin offered. ..."
"... A prescient early analysis of Putin, which brings out that the notion that his KGB background meant that he wanted conflict with the West is BS, is the 2002 paper 'Vladimir Putin & Russia's Special Services.' ..."
"... It was published by the 'Conflict Studies Research Centre', which was what the old 'Soviet Studies Research Centre', which did 'open source' analysis for the British military at Sandhurst became, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. ..."
From the description of the evolution the thinking of Christopher Steele by his co-conspirators Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch:
'When the Soviet Union finally collapsed, the suffocating surveillance of Western diplomats and suspected intelligence officers
suddenly ceased – which for a brief moment seemed like a possible harbinger of a new, less authoritarian future for Russia. But
the surveillance started again within days. The intrusive tails and petty harassment were indistinguishable from Soviet practices
and have continued to this day. To Steele, that told him all he needed to know about the new Russia: The new boss was the same
as the old boss.'
This was, apparently, the figure who MI6 judged fit to head their Russia Desk, and whose analyses were regarded as serious
among people in the State Department, CIA, FBI, DOJ etc. LOL.
As to Simpson and Fritsch, they were supposed to be serious journalists. LOL again.
A curious thing is that Tom Catan once was.
He wrote a good long investigative piece in the 'Financial Times', back in 2004, about the death of Stephen Curtis, one of
the fourteen mysterious incidents in the U.K., which according to Heidi Blake of 'BuzzFeed', American intelligence agencies have
evidence establishing that they were the work of the Russian 'special services.'
(As, according to the 'Sky' report you and Colonel Lang discussed, the supposed attempt to assassinate Sergei and Yulia Skripal
is supposed to be.)
What Catan established is that, at the time his helicopter was blown out of the sky, Curtis, lawyer both to the Menatep
oligarchs and Berezovsky, had started 'singing sweetly' to what was the the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
And what he was telling them about the activities of Khodorkovsky and his associates would have been 'music to the ears'
of Putin and his associates.
As with the deaths of Berezovsky and Patarkatsishvili, which also feature in Ms. Blake's farragos, at the precise time they
died, it was precisely Putin and his associates who had the strongest possible interest in keeping them alive.
Ironically, she inadvertently demonstrates a crucial element in this story – the extent to which not only British, but
American, intelligence/foreign policy/law enforcement agencies 'got into bed' with the members of the 'semibankirshchina' of the
'Nineties who refused to accept the terms Putin offered.
Unfortunately, I cannot provide a link to the Catan article, as it is no longer available on the web, and when I put my old
link into the 'Wayback Machine' version, I was told it was infected with a Trojan.
But I can send you a copy, if you are interested.
Leith,
Of course, no ancestry – be it Lithuanian, or Polish, or Ukrainian, or whatever – 'automatically' produces bias.
A prescient early analysis of Putin, which brings out that the notion that his KGB background meant that he wanted conflict
with the West is BS, is the 2002 paper 'Vladimir Putin & Russia's Special Services.'
It was published by the 'Conflict Studies Research Centre', which was what the old 'Soviet Studies Research Centre', which
did 'open source' analysis for the British military at Sandhurst became, after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The actual name of 'Gordon Bennett', who wrote it, is Henry Plater-Zyberk. They were a great, and very distinguished, Polish-Lithuanian
noble family.
In quite a long experience of refugees to these islands from the disasters of twentieth-century European history, and their
descendants, I have found that sometimes the history is taken as a subject of reflection and becomes a source of insight and understanding
not granted to those with more fortunate backgrounds.
At other times, however, people become locked in a trauma, out of which they cannot escape.
davidhabakkuk says: May
25, 2020 at 12:22 pm The kind of view of the end of the Cold War which underpins
Billingslea's notion that the United States can spend Russia and China into 'oblivion' is
that championed by people who totally failed to anticipate what happened in the Soviet
Union in the 'Eighties, and have not seen this fact as reason for rethinking the
assumptions that caused them to get things so radically wrong.
The extent of the incompetence involved is vividly apparent in the collection of
documents from the American and Soviet sides published by the 'National Security Archive'
in January 2017, under the title 'The Last Superpower Summits.'
Particularly revealing, to my mind, is Document 12, the transcript of the closed-door
testimony to the Senate Intelligence Committee by the top three CIA analysts of the Soviet
Union, Doug MacEachin, Robert Blackwell, and Paul Ericson, at the precise moment, in
December 1988, when Gorbachev announced his 500,000 troop cut at the U.N.
The editors comment:
'And MacEachin offers a true confession in an extraordinary passage that demonstrates
how prior assumptions about Soviet behavior, rather than actual intelligence data points,
actually drove intelligence findings: "Now, we spend megadollars studying political
instability in various places around the world, but we never really looked at the Soviet
Union as a political entity in which there were factors building which could lead to the
kind of – at least the initiation of political transformation that we seem to see. It
does not exist to my knowledge. Moreover, had it existed inside the government, we never
would have been able to publish it anyway, quite frankly. And had we done so, people would
have been calling for my head. And I wouldn't have published it. In all honesty, had we
said a week ago that Gorbachev might come to the UN and offer a unilateral cut of 500,000
in the military, we would have been told we were crazy. We had a difficult enough time
getting air space for the prospect of some unilateral cuts of 50 to 60,000."
Actually, it was quite possible to do much better, without spending 'megadollars', if
one simply went to the Chatham House Library and/or the London Library and looked at what
competent analysts, like those working for the Foreign Policy Studies Program then run by
the late, great John Steinbruner at Brookings – a very different place then from
now.
Among those he employed were two of the best former intelligence analysts of Soviet
military strategy: Ambassador Raymond Garthoff and Commander Michael MccGwire, R.N., to
give them their titles when in government service.
These has devoted a great deal of effort to explaining that Professor Richard Pipes of
Harvard, a key influence in creating the 'groupthink' MacEachin described, had missed a
crucial transition away from nuclear war planning to conventional 'deep operations' in the
late 'Sixties and 'Seventies.
Inturn, this led Garthoff and MccGwire to grasp that the Gorbachev-era 'new thinkers'
had decided that the conventional 'deep operations' posture in turn needed to be abandoned.
For a summary of the latter's arguments, see article entitled 'Rethinking War: The Soviets
and European Security', published in the Spring 1988 edition of the 'Brookings Review',
available on the 'Unz Review' site.
Also associated with Brookings at the time was the Duke University Sovietologist Jerry
Hough, who had read his way through the writings of academics in the institutes associated
with the Academy of Sciences on development economics, and talked extensively to many of
their authors.
In the 'Conclusion' to his 1986 study, 'The Struggle for the Third World: Soviet Debates
and American Options', Hough wrote:
'Or what is one to say about the argument – now very widely accepted – among
Soviet economists – that countries with "capitalist-oriented" economies in the third
world have a natural tendency to grow more rapidly than countries with a "socialist
orientation" because well-rounded development seems to be dependent on foreign investment
and integration into the world market? A quarter of a century ago, let alone in the Stalin
period, it was just as widely accepted that integration into the capitalist world economy
doomed a third world country to slow, deformed growth and that foreign investment exploited
a local economy.'
One thing one could say is that this recognition that fundamental premises of the
Marxist-Leninist view of the world had turned out wrong was simple an acknowledgement of
the ways that the world had changed. And that view of the world had defined the political
framework in which Soviet contingency planning for war had developed.
Central to this had been the premise of a 'natural' teleology of history towards
socialism, with the risk of war in the international system arising from the attempts of
the 'imperialist' powers to resist this.
So there were profound pressures, which really were not simply created by the Reagan
military build-up and SDI, for radical changes in the Soviet security posture. Questions
were obviously raised, however, as to whether these – together with radical domestic
reform – would defuse Western hostility.
Fascinating here is Document 11, a memo to Gorbachev from a key advisor, Georgy Arbatov,
the director of the 'Institute for U.S.A. and Canada' from the previous June. This sets the
plan for the 500,000 troop reduction in the context both of the wider conception of
liquidating the capability for large-scale offensive operations described MccGwire, and
also of the perceived importance of breaking the 'image of the enemy' in the West.
While both Gorbachev, and Arbatov, were widely perceived in the West as engaged in a
particularly dangerous 'active measures' campaign, it is striking how closely the thinking
set out in the memo echoes that the latter had articulated the previous December in a
letter to the 'New York Times', in response to a column by William Safire.
Headlined 'It Takes Two to Make a Cold War', it expresses key assumptions underlying the
'new thinking.' Two crucial paragraphs:
'If the Soviet Union should accept the proposed rules of the game and devotedly continue
the cold war, then, of course, sooner or later, the whole thing would end in a calamity.
But at least Mr. Safire's plan would work. The only problem I see here is that the Soviet
Union will not pick up the challenge and accept the proposed rules of the game. And then
Americans would find themselves in exactly the same position Mr. Safire and his ilk, as he
himself writes, are finding themselves in now: history would pass them by, and years from
now they would be "regarded as foot-draggers and sourpusses," because almost no one in the
world is willing to play the games of the American right. Least of all, the Soviet
Union.
'And here we have a "secret weapon" that will work almost regardless of the American
response e would deprive America of The Enemy. And how would you justify without it the
military expenditures that bleed the American economy white, a policy that draws America
into dangerous adventures overseas and drives wedges between the United States and its
allies, not to mention the loss of American influence on neutral countries? Wouldn't such a
policy in the absence of The Enemy put America in the position of an outcast in the
international community?'
There was however another question which was raised by the patent bankrupcy of
Marxism-Leninism, which bore very directly upon what Arbatov, in his memorandum to
Gorbachev.
If one accepted that Soviet-style economics had led to a dead end, and that integration
into the U.S. dominated global economic order was the road to successful development,
questions obviously arose about not simply about how far, and how rapidly, one should
attempt to dismantle not simply the command economy.
But they also arose about whether it was prudent to dismantle the authoritarian
political system with which it was associated, at the same time.
In a lecture given in 2010, entitled 'The Cold War: A View from Russia', the historian
Vladimir O. Pechatnov, himself a product of Arbatov's institute, would provide a vivid
picture of the disillusion felt by 'liberalising' intellectuals within the Soviet
apparatus, like himself.
However, he also made the – rather interesting – suggestion that, had logic
of central arguments by George F. Kennan, the figure generally, if in my own view somewhat
misleadingly, regarded as the principal architect of post-war American strategy, actually
pointed rather decisively away from the assumption that a rapid dismantling of the
authoritarian system was wise.
And Pechatnov pointed to the very ambivalent implications of the view of the latent
instability of Soviet society expressed in Kennan's famous July 1947 'X-article':
'So, if Communist Party is incapacitated, the Soviet Russia, I quote, "would almost
overnight turn from one of the mightiest into one of the weakest and miserable nations of
the world "). Had Gorbachev read Kennan and realized this causal connection (as Deng and
his colleagues most definitely had), he might have thought twice before abruptly
terminating the Communist monopoly on power.'
What is involved here is a rather fundamental fact – that in their more optimistic
assumptions, people like Arbatov and Gorbachev turned out to be simply wrong.
Crucially, rather than marginalising people like Pipes, and Safire, and Billingslea, an
effect of the retreat and collapse of Soviet power was to convince a very substantial part
of what had been the 'Peace Movement' coalition that their erstwhile opponents had been
vindicated.
However, the enthusiasm of people like Billingslea for a retry of the supposed
successful 'Reagan recipe' brings another irony.
As to SDI, it was well-known at the time that it could easily be countered, at
relatively low cost, with 'asymetric' measures.
This is well brought out in Garthoff's discussion in his 2001 Memoir 'A Journey through
the Cold War: A Memoir of Containment and Coexistence' (see p. 356.) For a more recent
discussion, in the light of declassified materials, which reaches the same conclusion, see
a piece in the 'Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists' by Pavel Podvig from April 2013,
entitled 'Shooting down the Star Wars myth' at
And if one bothers to follow the way that arguments have been developing outside the
'bubble' in which most inhabitants of Washington D.C., and London exist, it is evident that
people in Moscow, and Beijing, have thought about the lessons of this history. Those who
think that they are going to be suckered into an arms race that the United States can win
are quite patently delusional.
VK #2
Yet you are fooled by the phony Socialism of "Red" China, which is really Neoliberalism in
disguise (I highly doubt Marx, Lenin, Stalin, or even the confused, Pro-U$ Mao would believe
Sweatshops, Stock Exchanges, and Billionaires represents the Socialist model of production).
I agree with you that Bernie Sanders is a gutless fraud and faux Socialist (he's merely a
Centre-Left Social Democrat yet he portrayed his movement as some sort of "Revolution", LOL),
who sadly represents the best you would ever get in the White House, in the sense that at
least he wouldn't have started any new wars, wouldn't have given any tax cuts to corporations
and the wealthy, and wouldn't have outsourced any more jobs in new free trade agreements
(these are the reasons I would have held my nose and voted for him if he had been nominated,
despite my much more Leftist beliefs).
However, I believe it smells of intense hypocrisy to call out Bernie Sanders as faux
Socialism (he is), while simultaneously bowing at the alter of Xi Jinping thought, which
along with being yet another form of faux Socialism like Bernies Social Democracy, isn't just
due to the naivety of believing that the phony Liberal Democratic process (in Marxist terms
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie), can actually achieve meaningful reforms for the Working
class and not just pacify them. In reality, it represents something much more devious, a
country that had a Communist Revolution and established a Planned Socialist economic system,
yet decided to sell out its citizens for an alliance with the U$ and massive wealth for the
Communist Party leadership, who proceeded to turn their formerly Socialist country into a
Neoliberal, Neocolonial, Sweatshop, that by giving 15 Trillion dollars in surplus value to
Wall Street is one of the biggest sponsors of U$ Imperialism (remember, according to Lenin
Imperialism is not just launching Wars against small countries, but includes when Western
Corporation exploit third world populations for massive super profits through resource
extraction and cheap labor sweatshops). In reality their are only two countries today (Cuba
and North Korea) that are in the Socialist mode of production according to the
Marxist-Leninist definition, sadly their used to be many more (the USSR, the other Eastern
Bloc countries, Maoist China, etc.) which all succumb to Capitalist counterrevolution (the
USSR and the other Eastern Bloc countries etc.), or the ruling Communist Party embracing such
extreme revisionism that over time they basically restored the Capitalist mode of production
and Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in all but name only. The reason for both of these
tragic events was the fact that due to a long-term revisionist trend after the death of
Stalin and Maos ridiculous Sino-Soviet split, the leadership of these countries became
corrupted by the desire for the U$-style "Good life" of mass consumerism and hedonistic
materialism (not Dialectical Materialism), thus proving that the real threat to Socialism is
the Neoliberal culture of decedent consumerism which corrupt the leadership and enchants the
masses of nations around the world.
"... Deanna Spingola's articles are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the person or organization must not charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and full credit given. Deanna's web site address must also be included. ..."
In 1989 President George H. W. Bush began the multi-billion dollar Project Hammer program using an investment strategy to bring
about the economic destruction of the Soviet Union including the theft of the Soviet treasury, the destabilization of the ruble,
funding a KGB coup against Gorbachev in August 1991 and the seizure of major energy and munitions industries in the Soviet Union.
Those resources would subsequently be turned over to international bankers and corporations. On November 1, 2001, the second operative
in the Bush regime, President George W. Bush, issued Executive Order 13233 on the basis of "national security" and concealed the
records of past presidents, especially his father's spurious activities during 1990 and 1991. Consequently, those records are no
longer accessible to the public. [1] The Russian
coup plot was discussed in June 1991 when Yeltsin visited with Bush in conjunction with his visit to the United States. On that same
visit, Yeltsin met discreetly with Gerald Corrigan, the chairman of the New York Federal Reserve.
[2]
Because of numerous Presidential Executive Orders, the ethically questionable Project Hammer was deemed legal. Many of Reagan's
executive orders were actually authored by Vice President Bush or his legal associates, and it is possible that Project Hammer was
created by Reagan's CIA Director, William Casey, who had directed OSS operations through Alan Dulles in Europe during World War II.
Prior to his OSS affiliation, Casey worked for the Board of Economic Warfare which allegedly targeted "Hitler's economic jugular."
[3] Allen Dulles, brother of John Foster Dulles,
was the Director of the CIA (1953-1961). He was a senior partner at the Wall Street firm of Sullivan and Cromwell, which represented
the Rockefeller Empire and other mammoth trusts, corporations and cartels.
Project Hammer was staffed with CIA operatives and others associated with the National Security apparatus. Covert channels were
already in place as a result of other illegal Bush activities. Thus, it was a given (1) that the project would use secret, illegal
funds for unapproved covert operations, and (2) that the American public and Congress would not be informed about the illegal actions
perpetrated in foreign countries. The first objective was allegedly to crush Communism, a growing political philosophy and social
movement that was initially funded by the usual group of international bankers who now supported their demise. To this end, the "Vulcans,"
under George H. W. Bush, waged war against the Soviet Union.
[4]
The Return of the Vulcans
In their reincarnation in the administration of George W. Bush, the Vulcans functioned as a supposedly benign group, led by Council
of Foreign Relations (CFR) member Condoleezza Rice, who attempted to augment and compensate for the Bush's lack of experience and
education concerning foreign policy during his presidential campaign. Rice had been President George H. W. Bush's Soviet and East
European Affairs Advisor in the National Security Council during the Soviet Union's dissolution and during the German reunification
(July 1, 1990). The resurrected Vulcan group included Richard Armitage, Robert Blackwill, Stephen Hadley, Richard Perle, Rabbi Dov
S. Zakheim, Robert Zoellick and Paul Wolfowitz. Other key campaign figures included Dick Cheney, George P. Shultz and Colin Powell,
all influential but not actually a part of the Vulcan Group. All of these people, associated with the George H. W. Bush administration,
returned to powerful, strategic positions in George W. Bush's administration.
Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz have been accused of being agents for the Israeli government. Investigations by Congress and
the FBI have substantiated those allegations. Zakheim and his family were heavily involved in Yeshivat Sha'alvim, an educational
organization in which students are taught to render absolute commitment to the State of Israel.
[5]
Many of these individuals were also members of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) which was established in the spring
of 1997 with the intention of promoting American Global leadership at any cost. The chairman and co-founder was William Kristol,
son of Irving Kristol (CFR), considered the godfather of neo-conservatism which promotes the ideas of Max Shachtman and Leo Strauss,
a noted Zionist and professor of political science at the University of Chicago. Kristol's co-founder was Robert W. Kagan (CFR).
Kristol is also the editor and co-founder, along with John Podhoretz, of the Weekly Standard Magazine , established September
17, 1995 and owned by Rupert Murdoch until August 2009. This "conservative" magazine is edited by William Kristol and Fred Barnes
and promotes Middle East warfare and a huge military budget, a mentality that infects the most popular "conservative" talk show radio
hosts. Kristol is a trustee for the Manhattan Institute which was founded by CIA Director William Casey and was staffed with former
CIA officers.
The Vulcans had almost limitless financing from a cache known by several names – the Black Eagle Trust, the Marcos gold, Yamashita's
Gold, the Golden Lily Treasure, or the Durham Trust. Japan, under Emperor Hirohito, appointed a brother, Prince Chichibu, to head
Golden Lily, established in November 1937 before Japan's infamous Rape of Nanking , to accompany and follow the military. The Golden
Lily operation carried out massive plunder throughout Asia and included an army of jewelers, financial experts and smelters.
[6] The Japanese were allegedly very organized
and methodical. After the Allied blockade, Golden Lily headquarters were moved from Singapore to Manila where 175 storage sites were
built by slave laborers and POWs. Billions of dollars worth of gold and other plundered treasures were stockpiled in these underground
caverns, some of which were dis covered by the notorious Cold Warrior, Edward G. Lansdale who directed the recovery of some of the
vaults. Truman and subsequent presidents, without congressional knowledge, have used those resources to finance the CIA's chaotic
clandestine activities throughout the world. Much of the Middle East chaos is financed by those pillaged funds. A tiny portion of
that treasure was the source of Ferdinand Marcos' vast wealth. Marcos worked with the CIA for decades using Golden Lily funds to
bribe nations to support the Vietnam War. In return, Marcos was allowed to sell over $1 trillion in gold through Australian brokers.
[7]
In July 1944, the leaders of forty-four nations met at Bretton Woods, New Hampshire to plan the post-war economy and to discuss
organizing a global political action fund which would use the Black Eagle Trust ostensibly to fight communism, bribe political leaders,
enhance the treasuries of U.S. allies, and manipulate elections in foreign countries and other unconstitutional covert operations.
Certainly, those politicos who managed the funds also received financial benefits. This trust was headed by Secretary of War Henry
Stimson, assisted by John J. McCloy (later head of the World Bank) and Robert Lovett (later Secretary of Defense) and consultant
Robert B. Anderson (later Secretary of the Treasury).
[8] Anderson later operated the Commercial Exchange
Bank of Anguilla in the British West Indies and was convicted of running illegal offshore banking operations and tax evasion. Investors
lost about $4.4 million. Consequently, he was sent to prison for a token amount of time, one month. He was also under house arrest
for five years. He could have received a ten-year sentence but Judge Palmieri considered Anderson's "distinguished service" to the
country in the "top levels of Government." [9]
Between 1945 and 1947 huge quantities of gold and platinum were deposited in prominent banks throughout the world. These deposits
came to be known as the Black Eagle Trust. Swiss banks, because of their neutrality, were pivotal in maintaining these funds. These
funds were allocated to fighting communism and paying bribes and fixing elections in places like Italy, Greece, and Japan.
[10] Stimson and McCloy, both retired from government
service, continued their involvement in the management of the Black Eagle Trust. Robert B. Anderson, who toured the treasure sites
with Douglas MacArthur, set up the Black Eagle Trust and later became a member of Eisenhower's cabinet.
[11] In order to maintain secrecy about the
Trust, Washington officials insisted that the Japanese did not plunder the countries they invaded. Japanese officials who wanted
to divulge the facts were imprisoned or murdered in a way that made it look like suicide, a common CIA tactic.
[12] The Germans paid reparations to thousands
of victims while the Japanese paid next to nothing. Military leaders who opposed foreign policies that embraced exploitation of third
world countries were suicided or died from mysterious causes, which includes individuals such as George S. Patton, Smedley D. Butler
and James V. Forrestal.
The Vulcan's effort to crush Communism and end the Cold War was largely funded by that Japanese plunder. The Vulcans were resurrected
when George W. Bush was installed as president in 2000, facilitated by election maneuvers, probably lots of payoffs, and Jeb Bush's
purge of Florida voters. They conducted other illegal operations, like securities fraud and money laundering. This entailed murder
and false imprisonment to prevent penitent participants from divulging the activities of the group. During the process of accomplishing
the main objective of destroying the Soviet Union, the operatives made massive profits. In September 1991, George H. W. Bush and
Alan Greenspan, both Pilgrims Society members, financed $240
billion in illegal bonds to economically decimate the Soviet Union and bring Soviet oil and gas resources under the control of Western
investors, backed by the Black Eagle Trust and supported later by Putin who for the right price purged certain oligarchs. The $240
billion in illegal bonds were apparently replaced with Treasury notes backed by U.S. taxpayers.
[13] To conceal the clearance of $240 billion
in securities, the Federal Reserve, within two months, increased the money supply to pre-9/11 numbers which resulted in the American
taxpayer refinancing the $240 billion. [14]
The Takeover of Russia's Oil Industry
BP Amoco became the largest foreign direct investor in Russia in 1997 when it paid a half-billion dollars to buy a 10 percent
stake in the Russian oil conglomerate Sidanko. Then in 1999, Tyumen Oil bought Sidanko's prize unit, Chernogorneft which allegedly
made BP Amoco's investment worthless. Tyumen offered to cooperate with BP Amoco on the development of Chernogorneft but BP Amoco
was not interested. [15] In October 1998, Halliburton
Energy Services had entered into an agreement with Moscow-based Tyumen Oil Company (TNK). Their efforts were focused on the four
western Siberia fields, the first one being the Samotlorskoye field.
[16] TNK has proven oil reserves of 4.3 billion
barrels and possibly as many as 6.1 billion barrels, with crude oil production and refining capabilities of 420,000 barrels/day and
230,000 barrels/day, respectively. TNK markets gasoline through 400 retail outlets.
[17] In 2002 Halliburton and Sibneft, Russia's
fifth largest crude oil producer, signed an agreement. Sibneft will use Halliburton's new technologies to improve well construction
and processing while Halliburton directs all project management.
[18]
Tyumenskaya Neftyanaya Kompaniya (Tyumen Oil Company) was established in 1995 by government decree. It is now TNK-BP, the leading
Russian oil company and ranks among the top ten privately owned oil companies worldwide in terms of crude oil production. The company,
formed in 2003, resulted from the merger of BP's Russian oil and gas assets and the oil and gas assets of Alfa, Access/Renova group
(AAR). BP and AAR each own fifty percent of TNK-BP. The shareholders of TNK-BP own almost fifty percent of Slavneft, a vertically
integrated Russian oil company. [19] This transaction
was the biggest in Russian corporate history and was managed by Vladimir Lechtman, the Moscow partner for Jones Day, a global law
firm with thirty offices and 2,200 lawyers worldwide. TNK-BP, Russia's second-largest oil company employs almost 100,000 people and
operates in Samotlor. [20]
Reportedly, Putin was financially rewarded by the collaborators and was happy to purge some annoying industrialists who stood
in the way. Mikhail Khodorkovsky was the manager of Yukos, the company that he built into Russia's second-largest oil company after
acquiring it for $168 million when his Bank MENATEP, the first privately owned but notoriously corrupt bank since 1917 and wiped
out in August 1998, purchased it through a controversial government privatization auction in 1995. MENATEP was named as a defendant
in the Avisma lawsuit which was filed on August 19, 1999.
[21] The bank may have facilitated the large-scale
theft of Soviet Treasury funds before and following the USSR's collapse in 1991.
[22] His company had borrowed hundreds of millions
of dollars from western banks. [23] He was arrested
on October 25, 2003 and sentenced in June 2005 to eight years on fraud and tax evasion charges. He was allegedly targeted as a political
enemy by President Vladimir Putin who went after other big business owners who apparently made money by acquiring states assets.
Yukos was sold piecemeal to pay off $28 billion in back tax charges. Yukos was seized and given to Rosneft.
[24]
When Khodorkovsky was arrested, his secretive business arrangement with the Rothschild family was exposed as Jacob Rothschild
assumed Khodorkovsky's 26% control of Yukos while Khodorkovsky's directorial seat on the Yukos board went to Edgar Ortiz, a former
Halliburton vice president during Dick Cheney's reign as CEO at Halliburton. Cheney, as President and CEO of Halliburton, automatically
had an association with the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan Republic (SOCAR) .
[25] In November 1997, Dick Cheney, in anticipation
of imminent events, had appointed Edgar Ortiz as president of Halliburton Energy Services, their global division.
[26]
The Yukos Oil Company merged with the smaller Sibneft Oil Company on October 3, 2003 which created Russia's largest oil and gas
business and the world's fourth-largest private oil company.
[27] On May 11, 2007 Halliburton announced they
had made an agreement with the Tyumen State Oil and Gas University to open a new employee-training center in Russia to grow their
business in that country and in the surrounding region. They are currently training students from five countries, Kazakhstan, the
Netherlands, Norway, Russia and the United Kingdom.
[28] Halliburton was awarded a $33 million contract
by TNK-BP to provide oil field services to develop the Ust-Vakh field in Western Siberia.
[29]
September 11 – Black Op Cover-up
Three top securities brokers had offices in the World Trade Center, Cantor Fitzgerald, Euro Brokers and Garbon
Inter Capital. Flight 11 struck just under the floors where Cantor Fitzgerald was located. Cantor Fitzgerald, with possible
connections to the U.S. Intelligence apparatus, was America's biggest securities broker and apparently the main target. Within
minutes, an explosion in the North Tower's vacant 23 rd floor, right under the offices of the FBI and Garbon Inter
Capital on the 25 th floor caused a huge fire from the 22 nd through the 25 th floors. At
the same time, there was an explosion in the basement of the North Tower.
[30] A vault in the North Tower basement
held less than $1 billion in gold, much of which was reportedly moved before 9/11. However, the government had hundreds of
billions of dollars of securities which were summarily destroyed. The Federal Reserve, untouched by the crisis at its downtown
offices (as they had everything backed up to a remote location), assumed emergency powers that afternoon. The $240 billion
in securities were electronically cleared.
[31] Then, at 9:03, Flight 175 slammed into the 78 th floor of the South Tower just below the 84 th
floor where Euro Brokers were located. [32]
Brian Clark, the manager at Euro Brokers, heard numerous explosions, apparently unrelated to what he referred to as the oxygen-starved
fire caused by the plane crash.
The September 11 attacks related to the financial improprieties during the preceding ten years which spurred at least nine federal
investigations which were initiated in 1997-1998, about the same time that Osama bin Laden, after twenty years as a CIA asset, announced
a fatwa against the U.S. The records of many of those investigations were held in the Buildings Six and Seven and on the 23
rd floor of the North Tower. Those investigations were sure to reveal the black Eagle Trust shenanigans.
[33] Building Seven, not hit by a plane, collapsed
at 5:20:33 p.m. but was vacated as early as 9:00 when evacuees claimed to see dead bodies and sporadic fires within the building.
By 2008 and even earlier the covert securities were worth trillions. The securities used to decimate the Soviets
and end the Cold War were stored in certain broker's vaults in the World Trade Center where they were destroyed on September
11, 2001. They would have come due for settlement and clearing on September 12, 2001.
[34] The federal agency investigating
these bonds, the Office of Naval Intelligence was in the section of the Pentagon that was destroyed on September 11. Renovations
at the Pentagon were due to be completed on September 16, 2001. However, the Office of Naval Intelligence (ONI), the entity
that often monitors war games, was hurriedly moved. If they were monitoring the simultaneous war games that morning, they would
have realized that the games were used as a distraction from the actual assault. Whatever hit the pentagon struck the Navy
Command Center and the offices of the Chief of Naval Operations Intelligence Plot (CNO-IP).
[35] There were 125 fatalities in the
Pentagon, thirty-one percent of them were people who worked in the Naval Command Center, the location of the Office of Naval
Intelligence. Thirty-nine of the forty people who worked in the Office of Naval Intelligence died .
[36]
On September 10, 2001 Rumsfeld announced that the Pentagon couldn't account for $2.3 trillion, "We are, as they say, tangled in
our anchor chain. Our financial systems are decades old. According to some estimates, we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions.
We cannot share information from floor to floor in this building because it's stored on dozens of technological systems that are
inaccessible or incompatible." [37] It was forgotten
the following morning. Accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts who were in the section of the Pentagon being renovated met their
unexpected deaths. The destruction of accounting facts and figures will prevent discovery of where that money went. I am quite certain
someone knows where it is. Certainly this is not merely gross incompetence but private seizure of public funds.
[38] At the time Rabbi Dov Zakheim was chief-financial
officer for the Department of Defense. [39]
In 1993, Zakheim worked for SPS International, part of System Planning Corporation, a defense contractor. His firm's subsidiary,
Tridata Corporation directed the investigation of the first "terrorist" attack on the World Trade Center in 1993.
[40]
Certain National Security officials who had participated in the Cold War victory in 1991 thus comprised the collateral damage
of the Cold War. They, along with hundreds of innocent people were in the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon. Their deaths
were presumably required to conceal the existence of the Black Eagle Trust, along with the numerous illegal activities it had funded
for over 50 years. This massive destruction, and the lost lives, constitutes a massive cover-up and continued lawlessness by the
brotherhood of death, Skull and Bones, and their accomplices, the Enterprise.
[41] The Enterprise was established in the 1980s
as a covert fascist Cold Warriors faction working with other groups like Halliburton's private security forces and the Moonies. Citibank
is connected to the Enterprise, along with all the CIA front banks, Nugen Hand and BCCI.
Double Dipping
Alvin B. "Buzzy" Krongard was elected Chief Executive Officer of Alexander Brown and Sons in 1991 and Chairman of the Board in
1994. Bankers Trust purchased Alexander Brown and Sons in 1997 to form BT Alex Brown. Krongard relinquished his investments in Alex
Brown to Banker's Trust as part of the merger. He became Vice Chairman of Banker's Trust where he personally interacted with wealthy
clients who were intimately linked to drug money laundering. After a year of possible networking, Krongard joined (or as Michael
Ruppert suggests, rejoined ) the CIA in 1998 where his friend, Director George Tenet, concentrated his skills on private banking
ventures within the elite moneyed community. Senate investigations verify that private banking firms frequently engage in money laundering
from illicit drugs and corporate crime operations.
[42] On January 28, 2000 the Reginald Howe and
GATA Lawsuit was filed which accused certain U.S. bullion banks of illegally dumping U.S. Treasury gold on the market. The lawsuit
named Deutsche bank Alex Brown, the U.S. Treasury, Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve, and Citibank, Chase, as defendants. Gerald
Corrigan was accused of having private knowledge of the scheme.
[43] Krongard became the Executive Director
of the CIA, essentially the Chief Operating Officer, and the number three man on March 16, 2001. Krongard, while at the CIA, arranged
for Blackwater's Erik Prince to get his first contract with the U.S. government, and later joined its board.
Richard Wagner, a data retrieval expert, estimated that more than $100 million in illegal transactions appeared to have rushed
through the WTC computers before and during the disaster on September 11, 2001. A Deutsche Bank employee verified that approximately
five minutes before the first plane hit the tower that the Deutsche Bank computer system in their WTC office was seized by an outside,
unknown entity. Every single file was swiftly uploaded to an unidentified locality. This employee escaped from the building, but
lost many of his friends. He knew, from his position in the company, that Alex Brown, the Deutsche Bank subsidiary participated in
insider trading. Senator Carl Levin claimed that Alex Brown was just one of twenty prominent U.S. banks associated with money laundering.
[44]
Andreas von Bülow, a Social Democratic Party member of the German parliament (1969-1994), was on the parliamentary committee on
intelligence services, a group that has access to classified information. Von Bülow was also a member of the Schalck-Golodkowski
investigation committee which investigates white-collar crime. He has estimated that inside trader profits surrounding 9/11 totaled
approximately $15 billion. Von Bülow told The Daily Telegraph "If what I say is right, the whole US government should end
up behind bars." Further, he said, "They have hidden behind a veil of secrecy and destroyed the evidence they invented the story
of 19 Muslims working within Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda in order to hide the truth of their own covert operation." He also said,
"I'm convinced that the US apparatus must have played a role and my theory is backed up by the [Washington] government's refusal
to present any proof whatsoever of what happened."
[45]
On September 26, CBS reported that the amount was more than $100 million and that seven countries were investigating the irregular
trades. Two newspapers, Reuters and the New York Times, and other mainstream media reported that the CIA regularly
monitors extraordinary trades and economic irregularities to ascertain possible criminal activities or financial assaults. In fact,
the CIA uses specialized software, PROMIS, to scrutinize trades.
[46]
Numerous researchers believe, with justification, that the transactions in the financial markets are indicative of foreknowledge
of the events of 9/11, the attacks on the twin towers and the pentagon. One of the trades, for $2.5 million, a pittance compared
to the total, went unclaimed. Alex Brown, once managed by Krongard, was the firm that placed the put options on United Airlines stock.
President Bush awarded Krongard by appointing him as CIA Executive Director in 2004.
[47]
Between September 6 and 7, 2001, the Chicago Board Options Exchange received purchases of 4,744 put options on United Airlines
and only 396 call options. If 4,000 of those options were purchased by people with foreknowledge, they would have accrued about $5
million. On September 10, the Chicago exchange received 4,516 put options on American Airlines compared to 748 calls. The implications
are that some insiders might profit by about $4 million. These two incidents were wholly irregular and at least six times higher
than normal. [48]
Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Company, who occupied floors 43-46, 56, 59-74 of the World Trade Center, Tower 2, saw 2,157 of its
October $45 put options bought in the three trading days before Black Tuesday. This compares to an average of 27 contracts per day
before September 6. Morgan Stanley's share price fell from $48.90 to $42.50 in the aftermath of the attacks. Assuming that 2,000
of these options contracts were bought based upon knowledge of the approaching attacks, their purchasers could have profited by at
least $1.2 million. The U.S. government never again mentioned the trade irregularities after October 12, 2001.
[49] Catastrophic events serve two purposes
for the top criminal element in society – the perpetrators seize resources while their legislative accomplices impose burdensome
restrictions on the citizens to make them more submissive and silent.
[1] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E.P. Heidner, pp. 4-5 [2] Ibid, p. 20 [3] Ibid, pp. 4-5 [4] Ibid [5] September 11 Commission Report by E. P.
Heidner, 2008, p. 108 [6] Gold Warriors, America's Secret Recovery
of Yamashita's Gold by Sterling and Peggy Seagrave, Verso Publishing, 2003, pp. 32-43 [7] Ibid, pp. 318 [8] Ibid, pp. 14-15 [9] Ex-Treasury Chief Gets 1-Month Term in
Bank Fraud Case by Frank J. Prial, New York Times, June 28, 1987 [10] Gold Warriors, America's Secret Recovery
of Yamashita's Gold by Sterling and Peggy Seagrave, Verso Publishing, 2003, p. 5 [11] Ibid, p. 98 [12] Ibid, p. 102 [13] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E. P. Heidner, pp. 4-6 [14] Ibid, p. 29 [15] Tyumen Oil of Russia Seeks Links to
Old Foes After Winning Fight By Neela Banerjee, New York Times, December 2, 1999 [16] Halliburton Energy Services Enters Into
Alliance Agreement With Tyumen Oil Company, Press Release, October 15, 1998,
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1998/hesnws_101598.jsp [17] Ibid [18] Halliburton Press Release, Halliburton
And Russian Oil Company Sibneft Sign Framework Agreement, February 7, 2002,
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/2002/corpnws_020702.jsp [19] TNK-BP, Our company,
http://www.tnk-bp.com/company/ [20] Russia's largest field is far from depleted
By Jerome R. Corsi, Word Net Daily, November 04, 2005,
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47219 [21] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E.P. Heidner, p. 28 [22] Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, Source Watch,
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Mikhail_B._Khodorkovsky [23] Russia's Ruling Robbers by Mark Ames,
Consortium News, March 11, 1999, http://www.consortiumnews.com/1999/c031199a.html [24] "Sovest" Group Campaign for Granting
Political Prisoner Status to Mikhail Khodorkovsky, February 7, 2008 [25] Halliburton Man to Sub for Khodorkovsky,
Simon Ostrovsky, Moscow Times, April 30, 2004 as noted in the September 11 Commission Report, p. 233; See also Arrested Oil Tycoon
Passed Shares to Banker, Washington Times, November 2, 2003 [26] Halliburton Press Release, Ortiz Named
President Of Halliburton Energy Services, November 19, 1997,
http://www.halliburton.com/news/archive/1997/hesnws_111997.jsp [27] Russia: Yukos-Sibneft union forms world's
No. 4 oil producer, Global Finance, Jun 2003, http://mikhail_khodorkovsky_society.blogspot.com/ [28] Halliburton Opens Russia Training Center,
International Business Times, May 11, 2007,
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/20070511/halliburton-training.htm [29] Halliburton gets Russia work, Oil Daily,
January 26, 2006, http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-5579583_ITM [30] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E. P. Heidner, p. 2 [31] Ibid, p. 29 [32] Ibid, pp. 2 [33] Ibid, p. 28-29 [34] "Sioux City, Iowa, July 25, 2005 TomFlocco.com
, According to leaked documents from an intelligence file obtained through a military source in the Office of Naval Intelligence
(ONI), on or about September 12, 1991 non-performing and unauthorized gold-backed debt instruments were used to purchase ten-year
"Brady" bonds. The bonds in turn were illegally employed as collateral to borrow $240 billion--120 in Japanese Yen and 120 in
Deutsch Marks--exchanged for U.S. currency under false pretenses; or counterfeit and unlawful conversion of collateral against which
an unlimited amount of money could be created in derivatives and debt instruments " from Cash payoffs, bonds and murder linked to
White House 9/11 finance, Tom Flocco, tomflocco.com [35] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E.P. Heidner, p. 45 [36] Ibid, p. 2 [37] Rumsfeld's comments were on the Department
of defense web site but have been understandably removed,
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/2001/s20010910-secdef.ht [38] The War On Waste Defense Department
Cannot Account For 25% Of Funds -- $2.3 Trillion,
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml [39] September 11 Commission Report by E.
P. Heidner, 2008, p. 108 [40] Following Zakheim and Pentagon Trillions
to Israel and 9-11By Jerry Mazza, July 31, 2006, http://www.rense.com/general75/latest.htm [41] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E. P. Heidner, p. 6 [42] Crossing the Rubicon, the Decline of
the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil by Michael C. Ruppert, New Society Publishers, Canada, 2004, p. 56 [43] Collateral Damage: U.S. Covert Operations
and the Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 by E. P. Heidner, p. 28 [44] Crossing the Rubicon, the Decline of
the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil by Michael C. Ruppert, New Society Publishers, Canada, 2004, pp. 243-247 [45] USA staged 9/11 Attacks, German best-seller
by Kate Connolly, National Post & London Telegraph, November 20, 2003 [46] Crossing the Rubicon, the Decline of
the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil by Michael C. Ruppert, New Society Publishers, Canada, 2004, pp. 243-247 [47] Ibid, pp. 243-247 [48] Ibid, pp. 243-247 [49] Ibid, pp. 243-247
Comments: deannaATspingola.email
To avoid attracting spam email robots, email addresses on this site are written with AT in place of the usual symbol. Replace AT
with the correct symbol to get a valid address.
Deanna Spingola's articles are copyrighted but may be republished, reposted, or emailed. However, the person or organization must
not charge for subscriptions or advertising. The article must be copied intact and full credit given. Deanna's web site address must
also be included.
Yalensis, earlier you said that Russia should restore communism to remove poverty.
How did that work the last time in 1917-1991? The Soviet Union collapsed and historical
Russia was split into many different parts.
I expect that if Russia would experiment communism the second time the outcome would be
another split of Russia. This time it would be the North Caucasus, Tatarstan, Bashkortostan
and possible Siberia and the Far East breaking away from Moscow.
And why is that? Because communism doesn't work, period. It has been tried several times
in many different parts of the world, and it has always failed.
The basics are simple. Once private ownership is banned people stop caring. Motivation to
work hard is gone If you are deprived of the possibility to make money and own private
property.
Say what you want about America but there is a good reason why basically all the greatest
companies in the world are American, or at least from countries that have practiced
capitalism for centuries: Microsoft, Apple, Exxon, Shell, Amazon, Intel, Ford, Mercedez Benz,
Toyota, Samsung etc.
You can compare how a middle class American and a middle class Soviet citizen lived in the
1980s. While a typical middle class American lived in a big house in a suburb with two cars
in the household, a typical Soviet middle class citizen lived in a "kommunalka" apartment
where many families had to share the same bathroom and kitchen and a Soviet citizen had to
work a certain amount of years before being allowed a right to own his or her own car,
usually a Soviet made Lada. Most of the Soviet citizens never had a chance to get their own
car but instead of to rely on public transport.
I know you are going to say that China is a good example that communism can work. But
there is one problem: China is not really a communist country anymore. Actually the rise of
China began at the same moment when Deng Xiaoping allowed private property and private
enterprise. The horrendous communist policies of Mao Tse Tung killed tens of millions of
Chinese people before that. Allowing people to work for their own well being was that made
China what it is today (China is still a poor country compared to the West, but at least
hundreds of millions of people are not starving anymore as was the case during Mao's
rule).
If Russia ever restored communism again it would be the end of Russia.
a typical Soviet middle class citizen lived in a "kommunalka" apartment
Really?
I lived in a modern, built in the 1970s block in Voronezh in 1989.: 3 large rooms, largish
kitchen, bathroom and toilet, 2 balconies , 11th floor.
I live in a similar flat now, but on the 3rd floor, built 1976, central Administrative
District, Taganskiy precinct, Moskva.
The only thing communal about those 2 dwellings is the central heating, which is turned on
in October and turned off in May.
In England, during my childhood I lived in a slum street built in the 1850s: no central
heating, no hot water, no bathroom, no toilet. The toilet was in the yard at the back. The
dewelling had 2 downstairs rooms and 2 upstairs room, a so-called "two-up, two-down". I lived
there until 1960.
Wilson St. in my home town, 1969
My hometown is situated in the first capitalist country in the world.
God that picture brings back memories – we lived in similar property in Birmingham
until 1978. My family came over from Ireland in the 1960s and these type of houses were
common place for working class families.
You can still find them in the midlands and the north, although they have been modernised
to include bathrooms.
Capitalism and economic Nirvana are known to be one in the same in the minds of morons.
"Indications of this failure of capitalism are everywhere. Stagnation of investment
punctuated by bubbles of financial expansion, which then inevitably burst, now characterizes
the so-called free market.4 Soaring inequality in income and wealth has its counterpart in
the declining material circumstances of a majority of the population. Real wages for most
workers in the United States have barely budged in forty years despite steadily rising
productivity.5 Work intensity has increased, while work and safety protections on the job
have been systematically jettisoned. Unemployment data has become more and more meaningless
due to a new institutionalized underemployment in the form of contract labor in the gig
economy.6 Unions have been reduced to mere shadows of their former glory as capitalism has
asserted totalitarian control over workplaces. With the demise of Soviet-type societies,
social democracy in Europe has perished in the new atmosphere of "liberated capitalism."7
The capture of the surplus value produced by overexploited populations in the poorest
regions of the world, via the global labor arbitrage instituted by multinational
corporations, is leading to an unprecedented amassing of financial wealth at the center of
the world economy and relative poverty in the periphery.8 Around $21 trillion of offshore
funds are currently lodged in tax havens on islands mostly in the Caribbean, constituting
"the fortified refuge of Big Finance."9 Technologically driven monopolies resulting from the
global-communications revolution, together with the rise to dominance of Wall Street-based
financial capital geared to speculative asset creation, have further contributed to the
riches of today's "1 percent." Forty-two billionaires now enjoy as much wealth as half the
world's population, while the three richest men in the United States -- Jeff Bezos, Bill
Gates, and Warren Buffett -- have more wealth than half the U.S. population.10 In every
region of the world, inequality has increased sharply in recent decades.11 The gap in per
capita income and wealth between the richest and poorest nations, which has been the dominant
trend for centuries, is rapidly widening once again.12 More than 60 percent of the world's
employed population, some two billion people, now work in the impoverished informal sector,
forming a massive global proletariat. The global reserve army of labor is some 70 percent
larger than the active labor army of formally employed workers.
Adequate health care, housing, education, and clean water and air are increasingly out of
reach for large sections of the population, even in wealthy countries in North America and
Europe, while transportation is becoming more difficult in the United States and many other
countries due to irrationally high levels of dependency on the automobile and disinvestment
in public transportation. Urban structures are more and more characterized by gentrification
and segregation, with cities becoming the playthings of the well-to-do while marginalized
populations are shunted aside. About half a million people, most of them children, are
homeless on any given night in the United States.14 New York City is experiencing a major rat
infestation, attributed to warming temperatures, mirroring trends around the world."
Comrade Karl, the vast majority of poverty in this world is in capitalist countries. Latin
America and Africa will toss your silly assertions in the trash bin of history.
And saying China is not communist is equivalent to saying the US is not capitalist. I
leave it to your to figure out what the foregoing means.
There is a lot of talk here and in comment sections at forums about how the American Empire
is going to collapse soon due to its blunders and Russia and China gaining military
superiority over it. This kind of talk is a type of magical thinking and has no basis in
reality. The United States' most potent weapon isn't military, it's economic, and through it
the US government controls the world. That weapon is the US Dollar and ever since Nixon took
it off the gold standard it has been used to further the Empire's imperial hold on the global
economy. The economist Michael Hudson in an article called A Note To China (link at
bottom) explains how this works:
The U.S. strategy is to control your economy in order to force you to sell your most
profitable industrial sectors to US investors, to force you to invest in your industry only
by borrowing from the United States.
So the question is, how do China, Russia, Iran and other countries break free of this
U.S. dollarization strategy?
There are a lot of articles on alt.media sites about how China and Russia are
de-dollarizing their economies in order to resist, and eventually end, the US domination of
the global economy that is preventing them from maintaining independent economic policies
that benefit their citizens rather than global elites and US central bankers.
Russia managed to put a stop to overt US economic imperialism after the looting spree in
the post-Soviet 1990s decimated Russia's ability to provide for its citizens and degraded the
country's ability to maintain economic independence. But it still ultimately got caught in
the neoliberal trap. Hudson again:
Yet Russia did not have enough foreign exchange to pay domestic ruble-wages or to pay for
domestic goods and services. But neoliberal advisors convinced Russia to back all Ruble
money or domestic currency credit it created by backing it with U.S. dollars. Obtaining
these dollars involved paying enormous interest to the United States for this needless
backing. There was no need for such backing. At the end of this road the United States
convinced Russia to sell off its raw materials, its nickel mines, its electric utilities,
its oil reserves, and ultimately tried to pry Crimea away from Russia.
China, Hudson argues, by accepting the advice of American and IMF/World Bank economic
"experts" and through Chinese students schooled in American universities in American
neoliberal theory is in great danger of falling into the same trap.
The U.S. has discovered that it does not have to militarily invade China. It does not have
to conquer China. It does not have to use military weapons, because it has the intellectual
weapon of financialization, convincing you that you need to do this in order to have a
balanced economy. So, when China sends its students to the United States, especially when
it sends central bankers and planners to the United States to study (and be recruited),
they are told by the U.S. "Do as we say, not as we have done."
He concludes that:
The neoliberal plan is not to make you independent, and not to help you grow except to the
extent that your growth will be paid to US investors or used to finance U.S. military
spending around the world to encircle you and trying to destabilize you in Sichuan to try
to pry China apart.
Look at what the United States has done in Russia, and at what the International
Monetary Fund in Europe has done to Greece, Latvia and the Baltic states. It is a dress
rehearsal for what U.S. diplomacy would like to do to you, if it can convince you to follow
the neoliberal US economic policy of financialization and privatization.
De-dollarization is the alternative to privatization and financialization.
Loosening the Empire's hold on economic and geopolitical affairs and moving to a
multipolar world order is a tough slog and the Empire will use everything it can to stop this
from happening. But at the moment even countries under American sanctions and surrounded by
its armies, with the possible exception of Iran, aren't really fighting back. That's a bitter
pill for many to swallow but wishful thinking isn't going to change the world. After all, the
new world has to be imagined before it can appear and right now it's still global capitalism
all the way down.
The article in full, and Hudson's work generally, is well worth reading. He is one of only
a few genuinely anti-imperialist economists and he is able to explain in layman's terms
exactly how the US-centric global economy is a massive scam designed to benefit US empire at
the rest of the world's expense.
I was thinking about
winston2's comment in the previous thread. A good way for China and Russia to respond is
to go after those in the MIC; the CEO, lobbyists, financiers, etc... If they follow the money
and take them out, I suspect we all would see a dramatic turn of events. No need to publicize
their early retirement. Make it messy and public but not to the point of taking out
innocents.
Yes, Michael Hudson is excellent, mostly because he's rare economist, that is, one who
begins from the premise that the 'economy' is a set of historically-situated and specific
modes of exchange and forms of human relations. Aristotle located what we call the economy in
ethics and politics; we follow the fairytales of neo-classical economics and global capital
by imagining that it has some scientific autonomy from human social relations. Marx was right
in following Aristotle's insight by critiquing the very idea of an autonomous economy, which
the chief ideological fiction of late capitalism. Sam Chambers and Ellen Meiksens-Wood are
also excellent critics of this obstacle to reimagining a viable alternative to the economy as
it is propagated by the US neoliberal global apparatus.
Inkan1969 , Jan 16 2020 22:34 utc |
42S , Jan 16 2020 22:37 utc |
43
@Daniel #36:
The United States' most potent weapon isn't military, it's economic, and through it the US
government controls the world. That weapon is the US Dollar and ever since Nixon took it
off the gold standard it has been used to further the Empire's imperial hold on the global
economy.
But at the moment even countries under American sanctions and surrounded by its armies,
with the possible exception of Iran, aren't really fighting back.
Exclude me from this squad. I's always from the opinion that the USA would collapse
slowly, i.e. degenerate/decay. I won't repeat my arguments again here so as to spare people
who already know me the repetition.
However, consider this: when 2008 broke out, some people thought the USA would finally
collapse. It didn't - in great part, because the USG also thought it could collapse, so it
acted quickly and decisively. But it cost a lot: the USA fell from its "sole superpower"
status, and, for the first time since 1929, the American people had to fell in the flesh the
side effects of capitalism. It marked the end of the End of History, and the realization -
mainly by Russia and China - that the Americans were not invincible and immortals. It may
have marked the beginning of the multipolar era.
--//--
The world (bar China) never recovered from 2008. Indeed, world debt has grown to another
record high:
The world governments - specially the governments from the USA, Japan and Europe -
absorbed private debt (through purchase of rotten papers and through QE) so the system could
be saved. But this debt didn't disappear, instead, it became public debt. What's worse:
private debt has already spiked up, and already is higher than pre-2008 levels. The Too Big
To Fail philosophy of the central banks only bought them time.
--//--
Extending my previous link (from the previous Open Thread) about money laundering:
The global TV subscription streaming company, Netflix made $1.2bn in profits in 2018, of
which $430m was shifted into tax havens, reports Tax Watch UK.
The estimated revenue from UK subscribers was about $860m, but most of this was booked
offshore in a tax haven Dutch subsidiary. Netflix claims its UK parent company got only
$48m in revenue. When the costs of Netflix UK productions were put against this, Netflix
was able to avoid paying any tax at all to the UK government. Indeed, it received tax
reliefs for productions in the UK from the government.
A simple question requires a simple answer. Russia's defence expenditure in PPP terms is
probably in excess of $180 billion per year which buys a shedload of "capable military
equipment".
It should be noted that the point Hudson's trying to make in his "Note to China" is to warn
China of what if faces by using historical examples. As S points out @43, Russia's Ruble is
very sound and its dollar and T-Bill holdings are extremely low. The message to China and the
entire SCO community is to cease supporting the Outlaw US Empire's military by supporting its
balance of payments by buying T-Bills. The sooner the SCO community, or just the core
nations, can produce a new currency for use in trade, the sooner a crisis can be created
within the Outlaw US Empire--essentially by turning the "intellectual weapon of
financialization" against the global rogue nation foe.
This Jewish Vulture Capitalism is the way our Jewish Oligarchs act all over the world.
Russia was pillaged by them in the 1990s. Putin ended their reign of terror. This is the main
reason Putin is so demonized in the Zion Vulture ruled West.
A few enlightened industrialists, such as Henry Ford, even went so far as to make the
improvement of the lives of workers a priority, and to warn the people against the growing
financial power of the international Jew.
Ford's warnings were prophetic. We are living in the second great Gilded Age in America,
but the new Jewish oligarchs of the 21st century differ from their predecessors in several
important ways. For one, they mostly built their fortunes through parasitic–rather
than productive–sources of wealth, such as usury or real estate speculation.
The consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union!
26th of December is the anniversary of the collapse of the USSR.
Russia/Russian Soviet Socialist Republic
30,000 Medium to large scale factories in 1990 (before the collapse). That number is
reduced down to 5000.
GDP of 1996 was 63.1% of the 1991 GDP keep in mind that the economy of the USSR in 1991
was worse off than before the Perestroika period, thus the GDP of 1996 would be even
smaller compared to the pre-collapse era GDP of the USSR.
Number of hospitals has halved from 10700 to 5400.
Similarly, the number of schools has dropped from almost 70,000 to 42,600.
In just 17 years, from 2000-2017 26700,000,000,000 rubles have been illegally stolen
from the people outside of Russia.
At least Russia is number one at some things like first at the number of
Millionaires.
In terms of billionaires they are in 4th place.
22,000,000 Russians are in poverty
86% of Russians struggle to buy the most basic things
23,000 towns, villages and cities have been abandoned in the last 20 years
Because of Capitalism and the massive hit we took after the collapse of the USSR
including the horrible living conditions and poverty that broke out the Russian population
lost 30 Million in terms of demographics(More than in ww2)
Kazakhstan(Kazakh Soviet Socialist Republic)
only from 1981-1986 - 400 enterprises/factories were built, in 1983 we had more than 9
million cattle, 36 million sheep and supplied meat to almost all Soviet Republics.
engineering and metalworking enterprises/factories fell from 2000 to 100
machine building in the total industrial production fell from 16% to 3% (mostly oil and
gas now)
light industry - 15% fell to 0.6%, from 1990-2006 (all products are imported)
refined 18 million tons of oil, this number fell to 13.7 million tons (+ imported from
Russia)
education expenditure 8% fell to 3% = shortage of qualified personnel + it's not always
free.
Free medical care will soon be abolished too
GDP of 1996 was only 69.3% of the 1991 Soviet GDP, keep in mind that the economy of the
USSR in 1991 was worse off than before the Perestroika period, thus the GDP of 1996 would
be even smaller compared to the pre-collapse era GDP of the USSR.
Ukraine/Ukrainian SSR.
Ukraine seemed like it would become the next European power. It had 3 military districts
left over from the USSR with the best weaponry in the world including 700,000 troops as well as
a nuclear arsenal of 3000 that made it the 3rd strongest country in the whole world after the
US and Russia. By the time of the war in the Donbass the number of military personnel dropped
down to 168,000 while selling huge quantities of Soviet weaponry.
Scientists within the country reduced from 313 079(1990) down to 94,274 in (2017).
Doctors within the country reduced from 227 thousand (1991) down to 187 thousand in
(2016).
nursing staff halved since the collapse of the USSR
Electricity generation, billion kWh per year fell from 238 (1980) down to 167 (2000)
Stone mining(Coal thousand tons per year) 197 100 (1980) down to 81 100 (2000)
Steel production (thousand tons per year) around 48 000 (1980) down to 31 767 (2000)
Production of tractors (thousand pieces) around 130, 000 (1980) down to 4000 (2000)
Production of mineral fertilizers (thousand tons per year) around 4 850 (1991) down to 1
554 (2000)
Grain Harvest (million tons per year) dropped from 51 (1990) down to 25,7 (2000)
Around 250 planes a year were being built, that number dropped to 1-2 a year after
Capitalism.
The Ukranian GDP of 1996 was only 47.2% of the 1991 Ukranian SSR GDP, keep in mind that
the economy of the USSR in 1991 was worse off than before the Perestroika period, thus the
GDP of 1996 would be even smaller compared to the pre-collapse era GDP of the USSR.
The destruction of democracy
The 1991 referendum of keeping the USSR in one way or the other gained a 78% positive
vote. However, this was thrown out of the window and the USSR was torn apart
nonetheless.
In 1993 when the Parliament ie (Supreme Soveit) tried to remove Yeltsin, he ordered
tanks to drive into Moscow and shoot the Parliament building. Crowds of Soviet Citizens
tried to stop the attack, but were unsuccessful. Over 100 of comrades died that day.
https://images.app.goo.gl/eqRAJBrvyDRBRFUR9
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bjBmtkW3Tl8&t=423s (live footage from the day).
This allowed Yeltsin to change the constitution and increase his own power while selling
Russia off to Western capital.
Consequences for the Soviet people
We lost our democracy.
We lost our right to free education, which used to be the best in the world.
We lost our right to free healthcare, which used to be the best in the world.
We lost our right to not be homeless.
We lost our right to not be jobeless.
According to the UN Human Development Index -- which measures levels of life expectancy.
Commenting on the situation in the former Soviet Union after capitalist restoration, Fabre
stated, "We have catastrophic falls in several countries, which often are republics of the
former Soviet Union, where poverty is actually increasing. In fact poverty has tripled in the
whole region".
To sum it up for the Soviet people - "98 Russian billionaires hold more wealth than Russians
combined savings" or 200 Russian oligarchs have 485 billion USD most of which come from post
Soviet factories that used to be owned by the workers but were sold off at extremely low
prices.
Effects on the rest of the world
The USSR had connections with China, Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Eastern Germany,
Romania, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Birma,
India, Indonesia, Mongolia, North Korea, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Algeria, Mali,
Ghana, Sudan, Ethiopia, Yemen, Somalia, Congo, Angola, Tanzania, Mozambique, Madagascar. As
the USSR was collapsing/collapsed Socialism and Socialist organisations in all of these
countries would fall apart too leaving them at the grasp of the capitalists.
Cuba had huge economic problems as it was dependant on the USSR.
DPRK had a huge famine in the 90's due to the collapse of the USSR.
Many Socialist nations around the world reverted back to the first stage of
Socialism.
Civil wars within the USSR
Many love to say that "the USSR's collapse was bloodless".
This is a list of all the civil wars between Soviet countries and peoples:
Tajikistan Civil War - 50,000 dead
2010 South Kyrgyzstan ethnic riots - 2000 dead
Tajikistan Insurgency - 200 dead
East Prigorodny Conflict - 550 dead
First Chechen War - around 60,000 dead
War of Dagestan - 300 dead
Second Chechen War - around 80,000 dead
War in Ingushetia - 900 dead
insurgency in the North Caucasus - 4200 dead
Nagorno-Karabakh War - 33,000 dead
1991–1992 South Ossetian War - 1000 dead
Georgian Civil War - 20,000 deaths
Russo-Georgian War - 500 dead
Transnistria War - 1500 dead
Euromaidan - 200 dead
Russo-Ukrainian War - 15,000 dead
Overall - roughly 270,000 Soviet citizens have died from direct causes of the war.
Millions and millions have been displaced and have been thrown into poverty.
Conclusion
The Soviet Union was once the leader in all aspects of life, guaranteeing a tomorrow for all
of its citizens where they would not fear losing a job, being homeless, being hungry, unabling
to afford medical care. The Soviet Union produced its own planes, cars, hydroelectric dams,
nuclear power stations, rockets while the workers used to own the means of production. In 1991,
they took away our freedom while selling off all that my people have worked for, the
consequences of which will be felt around the world until Capitalism finally falls.
It's funny that the westerners/pro-westerns were always scared of a "Big Brother" scenario
but they never realised there was 2 opposites in their time, one keeping another from
becoming the "Big Brother" Now they're cheerful at the "Big Brother" - the USA level 1
The Soviet Union may've been a bit top-down for my liking, but its fall was undoubtedly a
tragedy and one of the worst losses of life outside of war in the 20th century. level 1
The illegal dissolution of the USSR was the greatest tragedy of the past 50 years, perhaps
of the last century. The movement for our liberation will recover, but it has cost us decades
of progress and hundreds of thousands of lives. Rest in peace to our champion. level 1
It is a well researched article, thank you for posting it. Looking forward to other
analysis around international states' affairs and their link to current CIS countries level
2
Bourgeois scum has stolen the meaning of democracy, you seriously think that voting once
every 4 year for one particular rich fuck and his coterie of rich fucks to be exalted is the
sole measure and implementation of democracy? level 3
Its not just that, can you remove a manager from his position for example? Of course you
can't, you will have to deal with him for years while you can lose your job with a snap of
his finger. In the USSR, managers and everyone in the hierarchy was elected, thus you could
remove your manager or whoever by popular vote. level 3 Comment deleted by user
5 days ago level 4
Rule number 3, u/bolshevikshqiptar already warned you.
Proof or don't say anything. Im from the USSR and people voted in my country, my uncle was
the ex mayor of his town elected by the people. level 4
Democracy ? Where is democracy in Russia? Kazakhstan? Belarus? Shooting the Parliament
building is democracy isn't it? Go educate yourself and read my post about Soviet democracy,
maybe it will change your mind. Forced labor? Now you complain that having a job is
guaranteed? level 2
true but the oligarchs still standing and the capitalist took advantage of it -> making
it worser for the people imo. level 3 Comment deleted by user
5 days ago level 4
The USSR was no workers' paradise. For all its formal allegiance to Marx and Engels, it was a
militantly hierarchical class society ruled by a tyrannical state. After World War Two, it
held brutal military power over Eastern Europe and East Germany. Still, Soviet-era Russia
created an urban and industrialized society with real civilizational accomplishments
(including cradle-to-grave health-care, housing, and food security and an impressive
educational system and cultural apparatus) outside capitalism. It pursued an independent path
to modernity without a capitalist class, devoid of a bourgeoisie, in the name of socialism.
It therefore posed a political and ideological challenge to U.S-led Western capitalism
– and to Washington's related plans for the Third World periphery, which was supposed
to subordinate its developmental path to the needs of the rich nations (the U.S., Western
Europe, and honorarily white Japan) of the world-capitalist core.
Honest U.S. Cold Warriors knew that it was the political threat of "communism" – its
appeal to poor nations and people (including the lower and working classes within rich/core
states) – and not any serious military danger that constituted the true "Soviet
menace." Contrary to U.S. "containment" doctrine after World War II, the ruling Soviet
bureaucracy was concerned above all with keeping an iron grip on its internal and regional
empire, not global expansion and "world revolution." It did, however "deter the worst of
Western violence" (Noam Chomsky) by providing military and other assistance to Third World
targets of U.S. and Western attack (including China, Korea, Indonesia, Egypt, Syria, Cuba,
Vietnam, and Laos). Along the way, it provided an example of independent development outside
and against the capitalist world system advanced by the superpower headquartered in
Washington.
To make matters worse from Washington's "Open Door" perspective, the Soviet Empire kept a
vast swath of the world's natural and human resources walled off from profitable exploitation
by global capital.
All of this was more than enough to mark the Soviet Union as global public enemy number
one for the post-WWII U.S. power elite, which had truly planet-wide imperial ambitions,
unlike Moscow.
The Soviet deterrent and alternative to U.S.-led capitalism-imperialism collapsed once and
for all in the early 1990s. Washington celebrated with unchallenged invasions of Panama and
Iraq. The blood-drenched U.S. President George H.W. Bush exulted that "what we say goes" in a
newly unipolar, post-Soviet world. Russia reverted to not-so "free market" capitalism under
U.S.-led Western financial supervision and in accord with the savage austerity and inequality
imposed by the neoliberal "Washington consensus." Chomsky got it right in 1991. "With the
collapse of Soviet tyranny," he wrote, "much of the region can be expected to return to its
traditional [subordinate] status, with the former high echelons of the bureaucracy playing
the role of the Third World elites that enrich themselves while serving the interests of
foreign investors." The consequences were disastrous for many millions of ordinary
Russians.
@Kevin #18
"Can anyone recommend a good book on the privatization of state assets of the former USSR?
Particularly one that focuses on how mid-level technocrats, often of a persecuted minority,
were able to get the capital to purchase these assets."
PUTIN from Chris
Hutchins is a good read that also describes the rise of the oligarchs and how Putin dealt
with them. Like one oligarch made a small fortune selling the first western cars in the
country and how they bought up cheap shares from the Yeltsin privatisation scheme. Privatized
companies changed ownership under threats or even at gunpoint. The oligarchs were simple
mobsters at the time. That is about what i vaguely remember reading the book a few years back
but there is a lot more detail.
TG #29
Replacement level fertility" is the total fertility rate -- the average number of children
born per woman -- at which a population exactly replaces itself from one generation to the
next, without migration. This rate is roughly 2.1 children per woman for most countries,
although it may modestly vary with mortality rates'
Russia 1.61 children born/woman (2018 est.)
Canada 1.6 children born/woman (2018 est.)
Japan 1.42 children born/woman (2018 est.)
Italy 1.45 children born/woman (2018 est.)
France 2.06 children born/woman (2018 est.)
@Kevin #18
I would suggest looking at articles in the Exile: www.exile.ru
Unfortunately, these are no longer free.
The short story: the most successful "privatizations" involved getting control of a bank,
then using the bank's deposits to buy up companies.
The most successful scheme was getting control of a bank which was partly used by the Russian
government for payments; I recall one example where one bank was used to clear funds paid for
state enterprises - so the "privatizers" were literally pushing money out for assets and
getting them back.
Further down the scale - there was all manner of chicanery including kidnapping, extortion,
murder and what not.
The problem with books published in English is that you're almost guaranteed to run into
thinly disguised agitprop ranging from the usual American and British academics taking the
national security dime, to Khodorkovsky and the other O.G. Jewish oligarchs attempting to
whitewash history: Gusinski, Berezofsky, etc.
Try this: Wheel of Fortune: The Battle for Oil and Power in Russia – May 15,
2017
by Thane Gustafson
A review @ Amazon:
Thane masterfully succeeded in uncovering the fundamental drivers of the Russian oil
industry and its interdependency with the political complex through a comprehensive and
convincing historical analysis, with plenty of meaningful insights and endearing anecdotes.
Rooted in Soviet legacy and having gone through the 90s bust-boom roller coaster and 2000s
state reconsolidation the industry is a unique globally isolated eco system, and, with
Russia as a whole, is at a crossroads. A must read for any decision maker in the O&G
business.
Just a quick take, the separation of the Russian government/ruling elites from Russian
culture suggests foreign influence as in Russia's elites looking to the West and aping
Western ideas – think of Peter the Great or Gorbachev. That was a betrayal of Russian
values and a historical mistake of immense proportions. Russia is learning to how to minimize
the core values of the West – greed, deception and narcissism.
China has done a better job than Russia in that regard but on the other hand it has a
vastly different history and enjoyed more isolation from Western meddling if not outright
invasions.
I would make a distinction here. Mastering Western technology is not necessarily the same
thing as "aping Western ideas". Also would distinguish between Peter the Great who won some
remarkable geopolitical victories for Russia (think Poltava); vs Gorbachov, who completely
betrayed Russia. To the extent he even left Russia vulnerable to American nuclear attack for
a window of 2 whole hours, or more.
As I showed in
this old post .
Gorby in phone conversation to George W. Bush Daddy:
"And now concerning Russia – this is the second most important theme of our
conversations. In front of me, on the table, lies the Decree of the President of the USSR,
concerning my resignation. I am hereby also relieving myself of the duties of the
Commander-in-Chief and handing over my responsibilities for employing nuclear weapons ,
to the President of the Russian Federation. In other words, I continue to manage these
affairs right up until the completion of the constitutional process. I can assure you, that
everything is under strict control. The moment I announce my resignation, these orders will
become effective. There will not be any kind of dispute about this. You can spend your
Christmas evening in complete peace of mind."
In other words, Gorby not only left the Soviet Union completely vulnerable to nuclear
attack for a period of 2 hours or so; but even announced that fact to their greatest enemy.
What kind of national leader does something like that? The only reason any Russians are even
around today, is because George Bush Daddy was either too kind, or too dull-witted to take
advantage of that once-in-a-lifetime opportunity.
"... To use Krushchev's granddaugher as a source was also a very low blow: she's herself an op-ed "journalist" coopted by the western MSM (I remember reading her pieces when she worked for the Asia Times, and she's for sure not a specialist/expert). ..."
"... It's also false when the NYT stated Russia is some kind of last refuge for oligarchs, mafiosos and terrorists in the world. No, this refuge's name is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. ..."
"... The USA is also the last refuge of Latin American dictators. More than 3,000 enemies of the State from Latin American countries live in Florida under officially recognized political asylum. Many of them are ex-generals and bankers. ..."
"... There's also a macabre message in the headline of the NYT article: that it is weird, from the American point of view, that Russia was somehow able to survive the absolute destruction that should have happened with its Shock Therapy during the Yeltsin era. ..."
"... The author indeed seems genuinely puzzled as to why didn't Russia degenerate to a Third World banana republic after the capitalist charge on the newly founded nation sponsored by the USA; after all, it worked in Latin America and many other countries. I've already discussed it here many times, and I stand by my hypothesis: Russia is still able to rest on the laurels of the good ol' Soviet Union. That windfall will soon end, so Putin must think a viable succession scheme and viabilize the five-year plans. ..."
The worst thing about the NYT piece is that it is not in the "Opinion" section, but right
in the Front Page, as if it were genuine investigative journalism.
To use Krushchev's granddaugher as a source was also a very low blow: she's herself
an op-ed "journalist" coopted by the western MSM (I remember reading her pieces when she
worked for the Asia Times, and she's for sure not a specialist/expert).
I disagree with b about the "hidden economy" thing. Every capitalist country has a
hidden economy; the USA, for example, has by far the largest shadow banking system in the
world, which could easily rise its GDP by 50%. Italy recently considered including the
mafia business in the GDP calculation so they could officially get out of recession. Having
20-30% of your economy "hidden", therefore, is not an excuse for the Russian Federation for
the dire state of its own people.
The NYT is also wrong when it infers Yeltsin was "fixing" the Soviet economy by making
it take the bitter pill. The Soviet economy begun to unravel precisely because of
Gorbachev's Perestroika - which was the policy designed precisely to reform the system in
the first place. Yeltsin made things even worse - far worse than a linear extrapolation
even from the Gorbachev era. Indeed, that's why he was toppled in the first place.
It's also false when the NYT stated Russia is some kind of last refuge for
oligarchs, mafiosos and terrorists in the world. No, this refuge's name is the United
Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Thanks to its inumerous tax havens (of
which the Cayman Islands are, by far, the largest), many traffickers, terrorists and
oligarchs are able to roam freely around the world, with their money laundered. Many of
them even buy residence in London and a British Green Card, so they can also enjoy the
protections the Crown gives to its subjects. In their free time, they also buy some English
football clubs, but that's another story. Switzerland also enjoy many of the perks of being
a tax haven.
The USA is also the last refuge of Latin American dictators. More than 3,000 enemies
of the State from Latin American countries live in Florida under officially recognized
political asylum. Many of them are ex-generals and bankers.
Indeed, Russia is considered a "not free" nation precisely because this kind of
financial promiscuity doesn't exist on a systemic-cultural level. Freedom, for the
liberals, is nothing more nothing less than being able to freely purchase and use the
commodities you bought on the free market with a certain amount of money. Russia (but
mainly China) doesn't allow the western oligarchs to do that, so it is kind of a
disappointment to the "vital center".
There's also a macabre message in the headline of the NYT article: that it is weird,
from the American point of view, that Russia was somehow able to survive the absolute
destruction that should have happened with its Shock Therapy during the Yeltsin
era.
The author indeed seems genuinely puzzled as to why didn't Russia degenerate to a
Third World banana republic after the capitalist charge on the newly founded nation
sponsored by the USA; after all, it worked in Latin America and many other countries. I've
already discussed it here many times, and I stand by my hypothesis: Russia is still able to
rest on the laurels of the good ol' Soviet Union. That windfall will soon end, so Putin
must think a viable succession scheme and viabilize the five-year plans.
@FSD:
Agreed, but I think we are seeing a strange form of mass psychogenic illness in the West (
https://quillette.com/2018/11/02/trigger-warnings-and-mass-psychogenic-illness/),
and in the EU and US in particular. I strongly suspect that the farther an farther the mass
media push the willingly ignorant bulk of people out into a fictional and counterfactual
mental reservation, the more and more people crave distraction that, like a junkie's fix,
needs to always get bigger to reach the same effect. I turned on the TV the other day and
happened on a show called Masked Singer, which struck me as so insanely manic in its
subject and its presentation -- loud music, flashing lights, cartoonish hosts, junkie-like
pacing -- that I wondered that anyone can function anymore inside this pin-ball machine
world. It's like the entire West is having, especially in its so-called cultural nodes, a
collective manic episode with very real danger of self-harm.
Because Russia's population is relatively stable, every small uptick in economic growth
is pure profit. With a stable population, even 1% annual growth, compounded every year, can
result in substantial prosperity before too long.
But in the United States, with open-borders cheap-labor immigration pushing the
population ever higher, the numbers are different. When a population ir forced upwards, the
economic demands are even higher than the population growth itself. That's because you need
to not just grow the ongoing population, but provide massive investments in new
infrastructure. Russia is like a person who's paid off his mortgage, and can devote all
income to living and making progress. The United States is like a homeowner with a massive
mortgage and who also has to pay massive taxes to pay for more sewers and roads and energy
conservation etc.
So 1% annual sustained economic growth in Russia means Russia is making progress, while
even 3% annual economic growth in the United States means it is falling behind.
Don't believe me? From 1950 to the present, immigration increased California's
population from 10 million to about 40 million. On paper the economy boomed, but the
average person is much worse off, the quality of life has tanked, roads are choked, rents
are sky-high while wages are stagnant, air quality is down even with massive spending on
pollution controls, poverty is the worst in the nation, homelessness is booming, etc.
It's my guess Putin doesn't waste time reading the NYTs. Why should he, and for that
matter why should anyone? The Times and the other Oligarch rags should be ignored by all.
Break the chains. Focusing on God and family a young couple may try homesteading. Ignore
the rest.
The imperial lie machine sure is disgruntled that the 1990s attempt to economically and
biologically crush Russia once and for all was a failure and Russia has since been
reasserting itself. It wasn't "the end of history" after all.
That was the source of the underlying current of Russia Derangement among the US
elite classes (political, economic, media, academia, professional etc.), the many
provocations, and then the total meltdown beginning in late 2016.
Since it really seems to be a collective mental illness (I mean that literally)
afflicting a power group which is already psychotic and violent, and since it coincides
with the accelerating erosion of the US imperial position, it's looking more and more
likely that this must eventually lead to all-out war. I just can't imagine the US stepping
back, any more than I could imagine Hitler doing so.
America's obsessive bashing of Russia (and now China) is suggestive of a deep
psychological disorder.
Though the Americans and their allied apologists will insist that it is sincerely
motivated by a humanitarian concern for Freedom, Democracy, and Human Rights(TM), that is
quite laughable given America's concentration camps for undocumented immigrants; its
incarceration of immigrant children in cages; or the US Prison Industrial Complex in
general, which has been called America's new Jim Crow in that it imprisons millions of
African Americans and other minorities and relegates them to a new racist caste system.
No, cut through the barrage of American Moral Supremacism and other delusions, the
United States is enraged that, despite its attempt to economically rape Russia in the 1990s
through American-promoted Free Market reforms and Neoliberal "shock therapy," Russia is
still standing and indeed resurgent.
THAT is what enrages the Americans and triggers them in rug-chewing fits of frenzy.
(Note from the Editor � Over 20 years ago, I was working for a company while endeavoring to build a church in California [preachers
need to work many times] and in the process we worked on a transaction of enormous size � $26.5 Trillion Dollars and it was deeply
involved with the CIA and our Government. It was under code name "Project Hammer" and the actual code word for the project was "EFG
Jacobi." After the deal closed the US Government froze the money. Many people don't realize that they have two sets of books, one
for the public and one for their clandestine operations around the world. We never got paid. I met Ambassador Lee Wanta (
http://eagleonetowanta.com ) about this time and since we had similar experiences
with the Government theft of funds meant for the American People, I have stayed in touch with him for many years. This article is
from http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/projecthammerreload/titlepage1.htm
written by David Guyatt who has intimate knowledge of these matters as the article will show. I kept a daily log on this for
8 years until we felt it would never pay out. Ambassador Wanta has a Court Order to release his money but powers are still refusing
to do so. We are attempting to arrange a meetingh with him and President Trump so the new Treasury Secretary can seize the funds
he has [$32.5 Trillion] which will pay off the national debt and finance the infrastructure for this country. There is a desperate
attempt in the ESTABLISHMENT, the Democrat Party, some Republicans, and the Main Streem Media to divert our attention from the true
story that you can read here and on the website of the Ambassador.)
Beginning in 1988 and lasting until approximately 1992, "
Project Hammer " was the latest
in a series of highly secretive banking practices � known as "collateral trading" programs � that are used to create, as if by magic,
huge amounts of unaccountable funds for use in specific projects.
These vast pools of unvouchered slush funds are applied to finance a wide variety of clandestine activities that include:
secret military projects
geo-political requirements
development of infrastructure projects
It is also whispered that, in the case of the Project Hammer program at least, a percentage of the proceeds generated from this
secretive activity found its way into the pockets of VIPs and well-known politicians.
Names associated with such corrupt behavior are carried on the wind; but if one listens attentively, the names
George Bush, Sr , and Jim
Baker
III are just discernible to the trained ear.
An example of the type of project on which these funds are expended is the trading programme known as "EFG Jacobi" � a predecessor
of Hammer � that I understand was used largely to finance military facilities and related operations at the
top-secret US base located at Pine Gap near
Alice Springs in central Australia.
In order to maintain the secrecy that surrounds genuine activity, these trading programmes are routinely said not to exist. Enquiries
about them are deflected and attention is instead focused on the warnings issued by government agencies about fake programmes. This,
when combined with the numerous prosecutions that occur every year over fraudulent High Yield Investment Programme transactions,
serves to create the impression that authorized programmes do not occur.
The reasons for this deflection are many, but not least is the fact that the asset bases on which these programmes usually operate
are also said not to exist � at least in the quantities that they actually do. The assets in question are large volumes of gold and
lesser amounts of platinum plundered by the Nazis and Japanese during World War II.
The fact that gold has been the one stable commodity used to back and support the issuance of currency over the decades means
that it has been subject to considerable government and central bank secrecy. It was only in 1997 that the Bank of England decided
to lift this veil of secrecy and allow the London bullion market a degree of openness. But that openness did not include coming clean
about the true amount of gold in existence, which is far larger than official figures allow.
Because of this and the extremely covert nature of related trading programmes, comprehensive details of the programmes' operations
and the financing techniques employed have remained hidden from public view. At least this was the case prior to the publication
of part one of this series,
The Project Hammer File .
1 This essay is the result
of further examination of the techniques and activity of Project Hammer, and now places additional important material into the public
domain.
Project Hammer 2
(Reloaded ) remains a high-level state secret in a number of countries including the USA. This was confirmed de facto by the
CIA in its refusal to release any relevant information following my Freedom of Information Act request in February 2001. The exemption
used by the CIA to reject my request was that relevant material is "properly classified pursuant to an Executive Order in the interest
of national defense or foreign policy".
2
Project Hammer also stands out because proceeds from the trading activity were illegally diverted by major banks. Confirmation
of this is provided by Brigadier-General
Erle Cocke in his April 2000 affidavit . In this, General Cocke was asked about the involvement of former US Treasury Secretary
Lloyd Bentsen, who was retained to investigate what had happened to (and also to recover) the missing funds.
Asked if Bentsen "had the government's interest in closing this whole problem" and if he had "ever had a discussion" with Bentsen,
Cocke replied:
Many hours just trying to find out whether any agency, any group, Federal Reserve, Treasury, CIA, FBI, security agencies, and
so forth, all of them put together, whether any of which would really like to finish. And, quite frankly, nobody stepped up to
the plate.
Cocke was then asked if "they would like to finish it", and he responded:
I think they would like to finish it, but they all back away. It is not my cup of tea, or they have spent enough time with
it and are not going to realize anything, and therefore they just quit. They don't confirm, they don't deny, they just stop.
One can conclude that the banks that diverted this money were too powerful for any agency of the US government to tackle. It also
helped that suitable and substantial "incentives" were provided to former high-level Bush (Sr) Administration figures to bring their
influence to bear quietly to ensure that action against the banks was not taken.
Although not part of the sanctioned plan for Project Hammer � which was to generate funds to pay off debts on bullion certificates
issued by certain metal trusts � the funds were siphoned off surreptitiously in order to rescue numerous major US and other banks
that by the latter half of the 1980s were tottering on the brink of bankruptcy.
3
The banks only had themselves to blame for their imminent collapse. Reckless lending to Third World nations for over a decade
or more, combined with the raw greed of senior bank executives, had caused unparalleled damage to the world's banking system. The
inability of indebted Third World nations to repay their massive debts could have been � in fact, was � foreseen, but was ignored.
The spiral of gluttony had taken prisoner the faculty of prudence and reason as bank executives, seeking their next bonus and
promotion, pleaded with sovereign nations to take loans they did not need and ultimately could not repay. Nor was it unusual for
some of the funds on loan to find their way into the private bank accounts of corrupt state officials � "diversions" that were known
about in the boardrooms of the top banks, but ignored as "business as usual".
By the end of the 1980s, big banks including Citibank, Chase Manhattan, the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (HSBC),
England's Midland Bank and many, many others were in dire straits. In all but name, they were bankrupt. The possibility of a prolonged
series of collapses of the world's top banks � a sort of "domino theory" of finance � was regarded in some quarters with palpable
fear. The entire Western banking system was rocking when it should have been rolling along nicely.
Somewhere, someone � nobody knows who (or at least no one is saying) � took the decision to bail out the banks and save the banking
system by diverting Project Hammer funds for this purpose. Those banking executives who caused the problem in the first place weren't
confronted by their mistakes or held to account by their shareholders but, instead, continued to collect their million-dollar pay
cheques, boost their bonus payments and profit shares, flick ash off their Cuban cigars, quaff bottles of expensive Cheval Blanc
and slap each other on the back in delighted relief.
One of those sighing relief was almost certainly Citibank's John Reed.
Another
one quite likely to have been cultivating a quiet exhalation was Hongkong and Shanghai Bank boss Sir William Purvis.
Meanwhile, many investors who had placed their money into Project Hammer in return for an agreed profit, as well as all those middle-men
who had worked hard for their promised commission, were relieved of their money in a twisted version of the well-known axiom, "One
man's loss is another banker's gain".
STEALING FROM THIEVES
The sanctioned purpose of Project Hammer was of a macro-economic nature, which is a nice way of saying that it was all to do with
"repatriating" the assets stolen earlier by someone else � except that when nations steal valuable assets during wartime, it's called
"plunder"; but when the victors in that war grab those same assets, they call it "recovery".
The assets in question were a vast horde of gold and lesser quantities of platinum plus not inconsiderable amounts of loose gemstones
which had been grabbed by the Nazis and the Japanese during World War II.
A large volume of this loot found its way to the Philippines where it was hidden in numerous treasure sites by the Japanese occupiers,
who planned to recover it after the war.
But it didn't quite work out the way the Japanese had planned. They lost the war, along with the Philippines � which, it seems,
they had been fairly confident of being allowed to keep in a negotiated truce with the Allies.
In their place, the OSS � the wartime forerunner of America's spy agency, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) � began recovering
the bullion plundered from a dozen or so nations. This bullion formed what became known as the "Black Eagle" fund, which was part
of a secret agreement eclipsed behind the 1944 Bretton Woods Agreement.
Consequently, the metal was placed under the care of OSS (and later CIA) operative Severino Garcia Santa Romana, who put it under
the control of numerous corporate entities he formed for the purpose. These entities, in turn, proceeded to establish 176 bank accounts
in 42 different countries in which to deposit these assets under private treaty agreement.
Confirmation of this came from General Cocke, after this was put to him:
"I have been advised that a chunk of the Hammer Project funds that were used to trade, to invest and reinvest, came from a
large block of assets that CIA put into the bank [Citibank]." Cocke replied: "And they pulled that several times from several
sources. Nobody is going to confirm it."
4
Santa Romana died in 1974, and following his death his former attorney and trustee was able to "acquire" considerable portions
of Santa Romana's estate by illicit means.
The lawyer was Ferdinand Marcos, who went on to become President of the Philippines and a favorite friend of the United States
until his overthrow in 1986. The acquisition of these assets helped give rise to stories of "Marcos gold" � a legend that was supplemented
by additional later recoveries of WWII gold and other loot using a Filipino Army battalion under the overall command of Marcos henchman
General Fabian Ver.
But Marcos was not the sole illegitimate beneficiary of war loot once controlled by Santa Romana.
Another was the late Baron Krupp who, I have
been told, also gained access to some of these assets. Meanwhile, it is worth mentioning that Santa Romana, prior to his death, was
apparently associated with former US President and head of the CIA,
George H. W. Bush , and "had some contact" with Jeb
Bush, the Governor of Florida.
In any event, this bullion has collectively given rise to a whole class of gold and platinum certificates issued over the decades,
mainly by top-drawer European banks.
(See the history of the Global Collateral Accounts HERE
)
The certificates bear the names of prominent, and in some cases infamous, individuals � usually heads of state � as beneficiaries.
However, these named owners were and are not the legal beneficiaries but, rather, were cat's-paws used to muddy the waters concerning
the true origin of the bullion. Nor did the banks that held the assets own them, but they could and did use them in support of their
off-balance sheet activity � to the point of irresponsibility.
It should not be forgotten that this gold and platinum hoard was stolen and that, under international law, every effort should
have been made to return it to its rightful owners � rather than secretly stash it in bank vaults for use in Cold War covert operations.
And although it can reasonably be argued that the true owners could never be traced � since the greater quantity of the bullion was
privately owned (rather than being central bank bullion) � it is clear that the ends dictated the means.
And even though numerous nations around the world were to benefit from post-war reconstruction based on the use and application
of this war booty, the price of this apparent largesse was for these nations to be moulded into Uncle Sam's image. As they say in
America's boardrooms, "There's no such thing as a free lunch".
In examining the techniques employed in setting up Project Hammer, one is struck not just by the complexity of it but also by
the way the banks and intelligence agencies involved structured things to shield themselves from responsibility (and lawsuits, no
doubt) by utilizing subterranean networks, each working at "arm's length".
Piecing these techniques and networks together has been an arduous, painstaking task, but the process has further unveiled a shadow
world of parallel finance usually only known to those initiated into it.
THE EMPIRE STATE CONNECTION
During his April 2000 deposition, just days before his death from cancer, Brigadier-General Erle Cocke, when asked about the overall
objective of Project Hammer, replied:
Well, it was mainly to bring back monies to the United States from all types of activities, both legitimately and illegitimately.
Not that they were in the smuggling business per se, but they were all in the arms business, they were all retracing dollars of
one description or another that had accumulated all through the '40s and '50s, really. And that probably is as broad a definition
as I can give you
General Cocke then added that involvement in
Project Hammer extended to:
the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agencies of all types, Pentagon in the broad sense of it and as such, the Treasury,
Federal Reserve. Nobody got out of the act, everybody wanted to get in on the act."
5
Cocke's involvement with clandestine CIA activities dates back many years. At the very least, he is known to have been involved
with the CIA's Nugan Hand Bank. For example, US Treasury records obtained by veteran journalist and author Jonathan Kwitny show Cocke
as the registered "person in charge" of Nugan Hand's Washington office.
6
Cocke also indicated in his affidavit that he was regularly contacted by the CIA for expert assistance over the years and was
usually debriefed by them following overseas travel. Despite this, a Freedom of Information Act request to the CIA made on behalf
of this writer was dismissed with the statement that "no records responsive to your request were located" � which is not entirely
the same thing as saying that no records exist.
7
It also appears that the CIA is not the only one that cares to deny knowledge of General Cocke. Another is former Citibank CEO
and Chairman John Reed, who, in a sworn affidavit dated 5 December 2000, stated he had "no knowledge of any persons named Erle Cocke,
Jr, or Barrie D. Wamboldt". Both the CIA and Citibank's John Reed hold at least one major advantage over General Cocke: they are
alive and he is dead; and while it is true that the dead can't lie, it is also true that they can't rebut anyone's testimony�sworn
or otherwise. 8
In his deposition, Cocke states that although he had never "met" John Reed, he had attempted on numerous occasions to speak with
him, but was continually rejected:
We did our best to make the normal approaches, but I can see the President of the United States with no trouble. I cannot see
Reed. 9
The "we" Cocke was referring to, besides himself, was Paul Green, a "long-time real estate lawyer in New York" with "50 years
practice", who "had done most of his real estate dealings through Citibank".
10
Green also did some of his banking business with Citibank at its Fifth Avenue, New York, branch under account FOCUS #946 963 94.
According to Cocke, Paul Green was an outside counsel for Citibank and went back,
"30-odd years with large transactions through that bank, buying and selling big buildings. He was very much involved buying
and selling the Empire State Building one time."
11
Asked if Green was involved in the purchase and sale of collateral instruments, Cocke replied:
Probably not as an individual. But he represented the clients that certainly wanted to do the same thing.
12
News in late March 2003 revealed that the Empire State Building had just been sold by casino king Donald Trump and the heirs of
shady Japanese billionaire Hideki Yokoi for US$57.5 million.
Yokoi (who, at the time, was serving a prison sentence and had secretly negotiated the transaction through a middleman) and his
partner Trump had gained ownership of the building in 1991 for US$42 million. Little is known about Yokoi's World War II activities.
The building last changed hands four decades earlier in 1961, when it was acquired by real estate tycoon Harry Helmsley from the
Prudential Insurance Company in a sale-leaseback deal. The world-renowned skyscraper was built on land owned by the
Astor family and sold to
the DuPonts in 1929.
Construction of the Empire State Building began in 1930. John Jacob Astor was one of the first Americans to become involved in
the opium trade, from which his later fortune derived. This he invested in Manhattan real estate. The architects of the Empire State
Building were Shreve, Lamb & Harmon Associates � designers of One Bankers Trust Plaza, the HQ of Bankers Trust, together with
the Credit Lyonnais building in New York City.
It is of more than passing interest that one law firm represents many of the "actors" who appear in this story. That firm is White
& Case. Amongst numerous notable achievements listed on its website background/history is its representation of the DuPont Group
in its sale of the Empire State Building in 1954 for the princely sum of US$51.5 million.
As we noted earlier, almost 40 years later, in 1991, the building sold for the less than princely sum of US$42 million. I am not
certain how the real estate investors define investment performance over the years, but an aggregate loss of US$9.5 million over
the course of 37 years doesn't usually constitute an investment accomplishment by any standard I know.
13
Meanwhile, a brief review of White & Case's client list tell us that they also represented,
the First National Bank (the forerunner of Citibank)
Seagram Company Ltd of Canada, controlled by the Bronfman family � regarded by some as the kings of the Canadian mafia
15
But White & Case's most "enduring" client is Bankers Trust Company, a J. P. Morgan-controlled bank which the law firm was "centrally
involved" in forming back in 1903.
The ancestor of all trust companies is England's Foreign & Colonial Investment Trust, which dates back to 1868 and was conceived
by one of the foremost legal minds of the day, Lord Westbury. The current Lord Westbury, Richard Bethell, will appear later in this
story.
But first, let's step through the looking glass and examine one of the early Hammer deals, which General Cocke believed:
It was one of the very early transactions, as far as I am concerned, with Hammer. I think he [Dan Hughes] is the one who expanded
Hammer in the sense that we moved from one hundred million [dollars] to a billion-type movement, and now we are doubling, about
a trillion. He is the one who enhanced it, is the best way of saying.
THE HUGHES PORTAL
Dan Hughes , Jr , the nephew of US Representative William J. Hughes from New Jersey, made a considerable fortune in
the construction business in Florida during his early working life.
By the mid-1980s, with paper assets nearing US$100 million, he became involved in collateral trading and by late 1989 entered
the realm of Project Hammer.
During the autumn of 1989, Hughes was approached by Peter Seaman, the President and Chairman of a small investment bank called
Nantucket Holding Company. Seaman had developed an arrangement with Ecoban Limited, a small merchant bank with offices in London
and New York City that specialized in emerging market-debt and the A'forfait market.
16
Seaman, using Nantucket Holding Company , concluded an agreement by which Ecoban would purchase US$100 million worth of
documentary letters of credit issued by the head offices of Citibank NA and the Chase Manhattan Bank NA. Hughes had access to these
bank credits via a US$50 billion "commitment" extended to him by the Bankers Trust Company.
To fund the purchase, Ecoban needed the support of a bank and turned to Midland Bank Aval Limited (MidAval), the forfaiting subsidiary
of Midland Bank Group International Trade Services (MiBGITS).
MidAval, once wholly owned by Midland Bank, had, shortly before commencing with the Hammer transaction, concluded a private agreement
with Sir William Purvis, Chairman of the Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation , wherein HSBC purchased a controlling
equity stake in MidAval. This meant that MidAval was 60% owned by HSBC and 40% owned by Midland Bank.
17
Accordingly, on 12 October 1989, MidAval issued a letter agreeing to purchase "$100 million with rolls until funds are exhausted
of documentary letters of credit"
18
An earlier MidAval letter (dated 25 September 1989) stated that they,
"irrevocably commit to purchase the above letters of credit and pay the amount agreed between you and Ecoban Limited ('the
purchase price') to Citibank NA, Lugano".
The reference to "Lugano" was deleted in later letters at the specific request of Nantucket's Peter Seaman, as detailed in his
11 October 1989, letter to Brian Fitzpatrick, the Managing Director of Ecoban Limited. Lugano was of some considerable importance
� as we shall see later � but not least because it was at Union Bank of Switzerland in Lugano where, according to Dan Hughes, the
actual trading of the Hammer programme took place.
Meanwhile, MidAval's letter was addressed to Jardine, Emett & Chandler, New England, Inc., in Boston, USA, which
acted as an agent for MidAval. On the strength of MidAval's signed and authorized letter, Jardine, Emett & Chandler issued its own
"Request for collateral instruments" under its letterhead. This letter, dated 12 October 1989, bore the reference "Midland Bank Aval
Limited for Ecoban Limited".
To close the circle, Dan Hughes had earlier instructed his attorney, Oswald (Ozzie) Howe, Jr, of the Miami law firm Mershon,
Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwoody & Cole , to cause to be issued a sight draft, dated 6 October 1989, drawn on the Southeast Bank NA,
Miami, and payable to Bankers Trust Company, for the sum of US$50,000. A further sight draft was issued in the amount of US$25,000,
at the request of Bankers Trust.
Following this sequence of events, nothing happened and no draws were made against the sight drafts issued by Southeast Bank in
favour of Bankers Trust.
But on 18 October 1989, Hughes received a time and sequence confirmation from Joan Johnson, Vice President and Operations Manager
of the Security Pacific bank in Los Angeles, which Hughes believes activated his transaction through a "back door" arrangement which
would cut him out of his commission.
19 Thereafter, Peter Seaman
point-blank and inexplicably refused to speak with Hughes again.
General Cocke was an experienced banker from a long line of bankers and was a former full-time US representative at the World
Bank.
Intimately familiar with the operational techniques of trading programmes, he was asked:
"Can you explain in a general way how it [Hammer] functioned, that it was a trade programme, for those of us that are not familiar?"
The stock way all big banks, all central banks, change within themselves and curtail their balances, build up their peaks and
then sell it.
He went on to explain that "most of it is done in a four-week program to be technically correct" and involved the trading of banking
instruments � usually known as "collateral" � that are heavily discounted and then sold off.
MAPPING THE COVERT CONNECTIONS
To appreciate the subtleties of how the diversion of this particular "portal" into Project Hammer may have occurred, it is instructive
to look at the connections and associations of the principal players.
20
Ecoban:
In addition to Ecob an Limited in London, there was the affiliated Ecoban Finance Limited that conducted business out
of an address on Third Avenue in New York City.
A one-time President and CEO of Ecoban Finance Limited in New York was Jim Demitrieus, who more recently was the President
and Chief Operating Officer of Ixnet/IPC, which was acquired by Global Crossing in June 2000.
Global Crossing was one of the US firms that recently suffered a spectacular collapse together with Worldcom, Enron and the accountancy
firm Arthur Andersen. All were subjected to a welter of media attention for what was believed to have been unparalleled insider trading
activities by senior executives.
Earlier in his career, Demitrieus,
"served as senior vice president and chief operating officer of the Commodity Division of Drexel Burnham Lambert, Inc., responsible
for the precious metals, energy products, foreign exchange trading subsidiary and institutional brokerage division".
Of interest here is the little known fact that Drexel, Burnham, Lambert, New York , was a recipient of gold bullion from
Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos in January 1984.
It is not clear from Mr Demitrieus's available vitae if this was the same time period he was the Senior Vice President of Drexel's
bullion business, but I am informed this is probably the case. Before that, Demitrieus "held senior-level financial positions with
Freeport-McMoRan, ITT and Arthur Andersen".
21
Significantly, Freeport-McMoRan, back when it was Freeport Sulphur , positively heaved with CIA and elite heavy-hitters
� not to mention persistent whispers of its involvement in the recovery of plundered gold stashed in Indonesia, where Freeport had
the world's largest copper mining operation.
Over the years, the Freeport senior management has included such luminaries as Augustus "Gus" Long, Chairman of Texaco, who did
"prodigious volunteer work for Columbia Presbyterian Hospital" � which has been described as a "hotbed of CIA activity".
22
Another director was Robert Lovett, who has been described as a "Cold War architect" and was once an executive at the old Wall
Street bank of Brown Brothers Harriman. He also served as an Under Secretary of State, Assistant Secretary of War and Secretary of
Defense. He was a best friend of Chase Manhattan Bank Chairman (and Warren Commission member) John J. McCloy.
The Chase Manhattan and Citibank connection to Freeport was further enhanced by the board appointment of Godfrey Rockefeller,
brother of James Stillman Rockefeller who was appointed Chairman of Citibank (then known as First National City Bank, or FNCB for
short) in 1959. (Note, too, that Chase Manhattan and Citibank are the exact same two banks that were to issue the Project Hammer
documentary letters of credit.)
Godfrey Rockefeller was a one-time trustee of the Fairfield Foundation that financed a variety of CIA "fronts". Meanwhile, Stillman's
cousin, David Rockefeller , was Chairman
of Chase Manhattan and regarded as the "goliath of American banking".
23
By a strange coincidence of fate, it was Robert Lovett and John J. McCloy who, together with Robert B. Anderson, formed Secretary
of War Henry L. Stimson's team of financial experts concerned with tracking WWII gold looted by the Axis powers.
Indeed, Lovett and McCloy were responsible for negotiating the secret agreement hidden behind the Bretton Woods Agreement
concerning the establishment of the Black Eagle trust
that was to make use of plundered WWII bullion in the postwar years.
24
Midland Bank:
When looking at MidAval's parent, Midland Bank Group International Trade Services (MiBGITS), one could do worse than read the
very informative book by former arms company chairman Gerald James, entitled In the Public Interest. James recounts numerous chilling
accounts of Her Majesty's intelligence service MI6's deep involvement with the MiBGITS special defense unit.
Included are details of Stephan Kock, who James claims to have been a former head of the Foreign Office's so-called assassination
squad, Group 13.
Another intelligence-connected individual named in James's book is Sir John Cuckney, who was a non-executive director of Midland
Bank from 1978 until 1988 and was responsible for having formed the defense unit in the first place.
Gerald James and his munitions company Astra also had dealings with, and a private account at, MidAval.
25
Kock's boss at Midland was Comte Herve de Carmoy, a Frenchman and a leading light on the
Trilateral Commission . He left Midland in
1988 to take up the position as the most senior executive of Belgium's massive transnational company, Soci�t� G�n�rale.
portrait serre
He was replaced as head of Midland International by John Louden, a multilinguist who had an unfortunate speech impediment � leading
wags in the bank to say of him that he could stutter in seven languages. De Carmoy's departure was followed by that of both Cuckney
and Kock, after what Gerald James describes as "funny practices" relating to a loss of �100 million involving all three men.
26
Although a similar amount to the MidAval's Project Hammer transaction, this sum of �100 million cannot have been the same money
for two reasons. Firstly, the Hammer amount was in dollars and not pounds, and was discounted at approximately 4% over the prevailing
one-year interest rate (LIBOR�the London Interbank Borrowing Rate).
For US banks of the standing of Chase and Citibank, at that time a market rate of perhaps one quarter of 1% � or, at most, one
half of 1% � was applicable. Four per cent was unheard of by a very long shot indeed. Secondly, at least a year separated the two
movements of money.
Even so, there are notable connections between the MidAval CEO Ian Guild and Herve de Carmoy (who was known in the bank as "Herve
the Swerve").
Firstly, de Carmoy was Guild's overall boss.
Secondly, shortly after de Carmoy moved to Soci�t� G�n�rale, a valued employee of MidAval (also a Frenchman, referred to
in-house by the affectionate nickname of "Froggy") left MidAval employment to take up the post of Chef du Cabinet at the specific
invitation of de Carmoy.
Thirdly, Guild and the other two senior executives, plus some other staff, left Midland in 1990 to form IndoSuez Aval Limited.
IndoSuez Bank was directly owned by Soci�t� G�n�rale and negotiations between de Carmoy, his Chef du Cabinet � the former MidAval
employee � and the three senior MidAval executives had been ongoing for almost a year before satisfactory terms were settled.
Following the takeover of Midland Bank by HSBC, MidAval had its name changed to HSBC Forfaiting Limited. It was dissolved in February
2000. Former staff had long since scattered with the four winds. IndoSuez Aval Limited is likewise now defunct.
Note
Documents and other exhibits in support of this story are available
HERE .
2. See Project Hammer
part one, "The Project Hammer File",
HERE
3. Information about
Project Hammer has been garnered from numerous sources. Those sources that I am able to name are named in the text. The remainder
remain confidential.
4. Page 51 of General
Cocke's affidavit. One of the CIA "sources" was the slush fund controlled by Japanese Liberal Democrat Party bosses and known
as the "M-fund", after General MacArthur's economic supremo in Tokyo, General Marquat.
6. See Jonathan Kwitny's
excellent book, The Crimes of Patriots (Touchstone Books, New York, 1987), for a detailed background on the Nugan Hand Bank affair.
13. If one includes
the inflationary effect over this time period, it would reveal that the sale price is, in fact, a great deal less now than it
was almost 50 years ago, which is more than curious. Nor does the leasing agreement over this same period seem especially lucrative.
14. It is not clear
from the banking records I have viewed online, but it looks as though the Astor Trust Company was absorbed into an entity that
formed part of the Bankers Trust Company.
16. Forfaiting is
the discounting of bank-guaranteed receivables (Aval) on a non-recourse basis.
17. I use the term
"private agreement" under advice�following a recent telephone conversation with a representative of Companies House, who told
me that no change of ownership notification had been made for MidAval at that time. MidAval had first been registered as a limited
company under the shelf registration name of "Diplema Twenty Nine Limited" in June 1983. A change of name to Midland Bank Aval
Limited was formally notified to Companies House in April 1996�although the firm had been trading in the name of Midland Bank
Aval Limited from day one. Following the full buy-out of Midland Bank PLC by the HSBC Group, MidAval had its name changed to HSBC
Forfaiting Limited. The company was dissolved in February 2000.
19. Sworn and notarized
affidavit of Dan Hughes, dated December 31, 1990.
20. There are believed
to have been numerous different "portals" providing access into Project Hammer over the period of its life. The Dan Hughes transaction
was one of these�albeit a significant and "early" one, according to the testimony of General Erle Cocke.
21. Demitrieus's vitae
is drawn from that published on the Global Crossing website.
22. For details concerning
the Freeport Board of Directors, see Internet report entitled "Freeport Sulphur's Powerful Board of Directors".
23. See Phillip Zweig's
massive book, Wriston (Crown Publishers, New York, 1995) for comprehensive background on Citibank and Chase.
24. For details of
these three gentlemen's involvement in the Black Eagle Trust, see Seagrave's self-published book, Gold Warriors; details are available
on my website, under the heading of " The Seagrave Affair
"
25. I know much of
the inner workings of MidAval for the simple reason that I was the Treasurer and an Associate Director of that firm until 1991.
However, I knew nothing of the Project Hammer deal that was strictly handled by the three principal executive directors.
26. See details on
page 164 of Gerald James's book, In the Public Interest (Warner Books/Little, Brown, London, 1996).
Project Hammer Reloaded � Part 2
Part 2
MAPPING THE COVERT CONNECTIONS
Peter
Seaman:
In addition to being the President and Chairman of Nantucket Holding Company, Peter Seaman was a successful businessman
and involved in a number of other enterprises. These included an entity called Harbor Fuel Holdings Co., Inc. of Westchester
County, in which Seaman was a partner with attorney Stuart Root.
Both Root and Seaman were clients of attorney Kenneth C. Ellis. Root was a director of another firm called Bowery Advisors
Subsidiary Corporation, which was registered in Florida with a principal mailing address of Kenneth C. Ellis "care of" the
Southeast First National Bank building, located at Biscayne Boulevard, Miami. Seaman had a residence in Greenwich, Connecticut,
where, by another odd coincidence, his next-door neighbor was Citibank's John Reed.
Following his close association with Dan Hughes in setting up the MidAval Hammer deal in October 1989, Seaman thereafter
refused to speak with Hughes ever again. Whether it was guilt for diverting Hughes's commission or some other factor that caused
this extraordinary vow of silence, we shall never know. Peter Seaman died, taking all his secrets with him.
Oswald
Howe, Jr:
Dan Hughes's attorney throughout the Hammer deal and the subsequent years of investigation was Oswald (Ozzie) Howe, Jr,
of the Miami law firm of Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwoody & Cole, whose offices were located in the Southeast Bank
building at the Southeast Financial Center.
According to Dan Hughes, it was Howe who introduced him to Southeast Bank, and Howe did a lot of real estate work for the
bank. Hughes also feels that his ongoing law case would be a great deal more effective if several vital documents had not mysteriously
disappeared from Howe's office. In any event, Mershon, Sawyer, Johnston, Dunwoody & Cole is now defunct, and Howe practices
law and is the senior partner for Howe, Robinson & Watkins LLP in Miami.
Southeast
Bank:
Southeast Bank NA was declared insolvent on 19 September 1991; it exists no more. Over the years it could boast some famous,
if not infamous, clients � but one suspects that such boasting was the last thing the bank's board of directors had in mind.
One such account "holder" was Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, who used his henchman and former law school classmate Roberto
Benedicto to front for him.
In addition to being appointed by Marcos as the Philippines Ambassador to Japan, Benedicto was a signatory to Marcos's Credit
Suisse accounts and was clearly content to be used by Marcos as a cat's-paw to hide his money and gold bullion.
27 Benedicto died
in May 2000, following a heart attack.
Other illustrious clients of Southeast Bank over the years have included such criminal luminaries as Licio Gelli and Michele
Sindona, named by author Luigi DiFonzo in his book,
St Peter's Banker . DiFonzo reveals that US$34 million of the "lost" money of Robert Calvi's collapsed bank, the Banco
Ambrosiano, was traced to that bank's subsidiary in Nassau, where it was withdrawn and smuggled to two Miami banks, one of
these being the Southeast First National Bank (of Miami)�where it was deposited in account number 18221465.
28
Bankers Trust:
Bankers Trust International, a subsidiary of Bankers Trust, was the other Miami bank named in St Peter's Banker as having
funds stolen from Banco Ambrosiano deposited with it. According to DiFonzo, these funds were deposited into account number
001050018, which was also controlled by Licio Gelli and Michel Sindons (i.e., Michele Sindona).
In 1982, Ferdinand Marcos arranged via his right-hand man, General Fabian Ver, to transfer 50 tonnes of gold bullion to
Switzerland via two chartered 747 aircraft. These were arranged by an individual using the name Ron Lusk, who had been retained
by Ver to deliver the gold to Bankers Trust, Zurich.
29
Bankers Trust is of considerable interest for other reasons, too. Firstly, readers will recall that Dan Hughes caused two
sight drafts to be issued in favour of Bankers Trust for the collateral commitment relative to the Chase and Citibank debenture
instruments � an activity which, as we have already seen, caused General Erle Cocke to believe kicked off the Project Hammer
programme in a big way.
Secondly, the lawyers and investigators who were building a lawsuit for Dan Hughes and other clients cheated out of their
money were quietly negotiating with the Central Intelligence Agency in an attempt to settle privately and quietly out of court.
According to Dan Hughes, these negotiations were taking place with the office of Buzzy Krongard, the then No. 3 man in the
CIA hierarchy.
By profession, Krongard is a banker and formerly was the Chairman and CEO of investment bank Alex. Brown, Inc. In September
1997, Krongard engineered the merger of Alex. Brown with Bankers Trust and became the Vice Chairman of the board of directors
of Bankers Trust. A few months later, in January 1998, he was recruited as a "counsellor" to CIA boss George Tenet. In March
2001, he was promoted to Executive Director, making him the No. 2 man of the spy agency.
But the strange coincidences don't end there. South African intelligence operatives Rolf van Rooyen and Riaan Stander,
30 who are both
deeply enmeshed in the Project Hammer (
1 and
2 ) story,
were working closely with Gregory Serras, the President/CEO of the San Diego brokerage firm, Vanguard Capital.
This involved discussions for Vanguard to act on their behalf in the private placement of Argentinian government-approved
debenture instruments that formed part of a trading programme that van Rooyen and Stander had been working on. In a signed
letter, Serras � acting on behalf of his bank, Morgan Stanley & Co. � requested confirmation that the debentures in question
were "legal securities authorized and approved by the government of Argentina"
Vanguard appears to change its banking relationships from time to time. In the period that Serras was in contact with van
Rooyen, its relationship was with Morgan Stanley & Co. Today it is with the Bank of New York, Inc. � itself no stranger to
front-page scandals, such as those involving money-laundering activities for Russian crime syndicates and political figures.
31 Of interest is
the fact that Vanguard was earlier affiliated with Buzzy Krongard's old firm, Alex. Brown, which, following the takeover of
Bankers Trust by Germany's Deutsche Bank, changed its name to Deutsche Banc Alex. Brown, Inc.
The fact is that when it comes to the fraternity of banking, one can often disregard the supposed rivalry that is said to
exist, because incestuous relationships are commonplace. In the past, at least, the big banks owned significant chunks of each
other's stock, whereas nowadays they just tend to merge. Take, for example, the Bank of America, whose second-largest stockholder
was J. P. Morgan. In third place was Citibank.
Meanwhile, Citibank's largest stockholder was J. P. Morgan, which in December 2000 merged with Chase Manhattan to form the
all-powerful J. P. Morgan Chase.
32 Bankers Trust
was a J. P. Morgan creation from day one.
White
& Case:
No doubt by sheer coincidence alone, the Marcos account held by Roberto Benedicto at Southeast Bank was a White & Case Trust
account (number 018-410191).
It may also have been mere coincidence that Peter Seaman's and Stuart Root's attorney, Kenneth C. Ellis � who was the registered
addressee at Southeast Bank building for the Bowery Advisors Subsidiary Corporation � is also listed on the
White & Case website as a partner of that firm, who specializes in
financial matters and who now works out of its Singapore office.
UBS,
Lugano:
One of the more flamboyant financiers of recent decades undoubtedly is the Italian, Florio Fiorini, the former finance director
of the Italian state-owned oil company, ENI. Fiorini is best known for his failed attempt to rescue Roberto Calvi's bankrupt
private bank, Banco Ambrosiano � an affair that also involved Mafia financier Michele Sindona and, of course, Licio Gelli,
the Grandmaster of the secret masonic lodge, P2, that was a parallel de facto government of Italy.
Unlike others, Fiorini spilled the beans, and he did so in two books that he wrote while in Champ-Dollon prison, Switzerland,
for "fraudulent bankruptcy". Of the many secrets he revealed, one of the most explosive was the now infamous conto protezione
(protection account), used to launder profits derived from myriad insider-dealing activities by some of the largest and
most prestigious banks and transnational corporations in Europe.
A significant slice of the profits was paid to what Fiorini amusingly described as "the starving of the parties". In plain
words, these allocations were kickbacks paid to the various political parties.
The administrator of the secret kickback account (number 633369) was a member of P2 and also a former Minister of Justice
of disgraced Prime Minister Bettino Craxi, who went by the name of Claudius Hammerings � and if one deletes the last four letters
of his name, coincidence throws up the word "Hammer".
33 Readers will
by now have guessed that the account was held at UBS, Lugano.
Fiorini's name also appears prominently in the story of the looting of MGM, the famous Hollywood film studio, by Italian
Mafia "thug" Giancarlo Paretti. The MGM affair was an event that almost brought France's state-owned bank, Credit Lyonnais,
crashing to its knees. Without intervention and an infusion of considerable sums of money from the French taxpayer, France's
once proud bank would have folded.
This is not the place to recount the MGM/Credit Lyonnais story, but it is of passing interest only to note that Credit Lyonnais
recruited attorney Charles Meeker to join MGM as president, to handle negotiations with Paretti. Prior to joining MGM, Meeker
was with the law firm of White & Case.
34 Following a warrant
issued by France, Paretti was eventually arrested and cuffed by US federal agents in a conference room in the downtown Los
Angeles office of White & Case.
Credit Lyonnais has also been deeply involved in Black Eagle gold transactions. In one transaction I am familiar with, a
large block of bullion was to be purchased by a representative operating on behalf of Credit Lyonnais Rouse Limited, London,
the precious metals trading arm of the bank.
35
It is also interesting to note that UBS, Lugano, was not only the bank of choice for those running the secret insider trading
protection account; it was also the bank of choice for former Philippines dictator Ferdinand Marcos. The numerous confidential
accounts he had at that bank have been dubbed the "Mother" money-laundering account for the Marcos family by Marcos gold investigator
Reiner Jacobi. 36
But the UBS connections don't end there. The Honorary Chairman of UBS (now part of the Swiss Bank Corporation Group) is
Nicholaus Senn, who was also the Chairman of the enormous transnational corporation, Compagnie Financi�re Richemont AG
, until his retirement in September 2002. Senn was also the senior partner of the Swiss-based international law and consultancy
firm of Senn, Christians and Letemeyer , which, coincidentally, acted for the late Baron Arndt Krupp.
In particular, Carl Letemeyer and Nicholaus Senn worked hard on behalf of the Krupp Estate in regard to the Krupp Heritage
& World Peace Foundation (Singapore), which received a legacy of US$97 billion from
Baron Krupp . This was a cash gift. According
to documents I have in my possession, Krupp's "secret" properties and businesses did not form part of this legacy. However,
the most interesting fact is that, prior to his death, Baron Arndt Krupp controlled some of the Santa Romana "Black Eagle"
fund assets. Of the $97 billion gifted, $47 billion was on deposit in account number 4 77 22 P with the Trust Department of
the Standard & Chartered Bank, London.
Indosuez:
This is one of those banks which are barely visible but consistently circle the waters of black gold and Project Hammer
� like a prowling shark with just the tip of its dorsel fin showing. For example, in one bullion transaction being negotiated
by Dr A. Konig, the Swiss representative of Rolf van Rooyen's Eastcorp Syndicate, the nominated closing bank for the transaction
was Indosuez, Lugano � where Eastcorp Holdings maintained an account.
This is in addition to the migration of some MidAval staff to Indosuez following their involvement in the Project Hammer
trading programme, as outlined earlier. With the closure of Indosuez Aval, a rump of former MidAval employees (now unfortunately
ex-Indosuez Aval as well), including MidAval's former CEO, found a new berth for their abilities. This was at Standard & Chartered
Bank in London. Standard Bank Nominees, meanwhile, is the second largest shareholder of Oppenheimer's Anglo American, with
a stake of 11.74 per cent.
37
While knowledge of the hidden connections of the Hughes "portal" into Project Hammer is vital for an understanding of how
the world of parallel finance operates, there are still deeper "rhythms" at work. An examination of these "rhythms" leads to
the companies, people and intelligence assets that sit at the heart of the so-called Anglo-American relationship.
THE KESWICK-JARDINE CONNECTION
A few days after I published part one of Project Hammer in late October 2001, I was alerted to an anonymous posting at the
Cryptome.org website of a document produced by the South African National
Intelligence Agency in 1998.
The document describes plans, then alleged to be in preparation, for a coup to occur during the 1999 South African general election.
Whilst the coup did not happen, the document is of significance because it describes members of � and entities aligned with � the
group who wished to disrupt the ruling African National Congress (ANC) political party.
38
A large part of this document outlines the alleged involvement of Executive Outcomes (EO), the British-based private security
company that is part of the Palace Group of companies. A few days prior to this document being made available, I had published charts
showing the "network" of the Palace Group that formed the London end of the associated South African intelligence group known as
the Eastcorp Syndicate.
This group was headed by Rolf van Rooyen and Riaan Stander � both South African intelligence operatives who were deeply involved
in Project Hammer. Not only were the London and South African networks closely aligned, but in some cases they also shared the same
executives. 39
One of the entities appearing on the Cryptome.org document as a member of the London network/Palace Group is Jardine Fleming of
Hong Kong, listed under "Banking and Investments". Two lines beneath appears the name Defense Systems Ltd � a division of the arms
manufacturer, Vickers.
Jardine
Fleming is also listed in the same document as a "role player", a few lines beneath the name of Tony Buckingham � the high-profile
head of Executive Outcomes. In an accompanying financial report it is revealed that EO used account number 600774426 at Jardine Fleming
Bank Limited, located at Port Moresby, Hong Kong. The account, rendered as at 15 May 1998, held a balance of US$36 million, and included
Tony Buckingham among those authorized to sign cheques on the account.
Jardine Fleming Bank Limited was established in 1970 as a joint venture between the huge transnational company, Jardine Matheson
Limited, and British merchant bank, Robert Fleming. Jardine's 50% stake in this Hong Kong bank was exchanged in 1999 for a direct
18% stake in Robert Fleming, which in April 2000 was sold to the Chase Manhattan Corporation � the holding company of what is now
the huge US bank of J. P. Morgan Chase.
But a year later, in May 2001, the magicians' musical chairs were in use again when it was announced that Jardine Fleming Bank
was to be sold by J. P. Morgan Chase to Standard Bank. The transfer of ownership occurred on 3 July 2001, with the renaming of
Jardine Fleming Bank to Standard Bank Asia Limited, but trading was under the new name of Standard Jardine Fleming Bank Limited.
Of considerable significance is the fact that, at the time that Jardine, Emett & Chandler � the firm of Boston insurance
brokers mentioned earlier � issued its letter on behalf of MidAval, seeking collateral instruments, it was owned by Jardine Matheson
Limited. Meanwhile, Jardine Resources Limited, with an address in the Isle of Man, was a business entity used by Rolf van Rooyen
for collateral trading programme and other activities. The Isle of Man also boasted a branch of Jardine Fleming Bank Limited.
Jardine Matheson Limited, originally formed over 170 years ago, created a fortune from the China opium business. Since that time
it has diversified enormously and remains the family fiefdom of the Keswick family, descendants of the firm's co-founder, William
Jardine.
The Keswick clan, in addition to having had family members awarded the chairmanship or directorship of such notable international
companies as Hongkong & Shanghai Bank , Rio Tinto Zinc and Samuel Montagu (the London merchant bank that was
part of the Midland Bank Group, itself now owned by HSBC), is also able to boast having had family members as the head of Britain's
Secret Intelligence Service (SIS) and decades-long membership of the Court of the Bank of England.
Rio Tinto Zinc (RTZ) was founded in 1873 by Hugh Matheson, the co-founder of Jardine Matheson. In 1995, RTZ acquired a minority
ownership in Freeport McMoRan. Anglo American (which has long had very close ties with RTZ), together with De Beers, is the fiefdom
of the Oppenheimer family, which owns a significant piece of Lonrho. These three intertwined conglomerates dominate the precious
metals and mining world � amongst achieving other notable accomplishments. For example, the Oppenheimers' Minorco holding company
is believed to be the single largest investor in the United States.
Minorco, founded in 1981, was quick to obtain an interest in America's then biggest bank, Citibank, whose CEO, Walter Wriston,
together with Citibank's principal attorney, Robert Clare, a partner of the powerful law firm of Shearson & Sterling, both accepted
invitations to sit on the Minorco board.
40
According to the authors of the book
Dope, Inc ., the Keswick family
controls a substantial part of the world's narcotics trade and uses HSBC, the bank it is said to control, to "provide centralized
rediscounting facilities for the financing of the drugs trade".
41
How true this is remains unknown to this writer, but it is known that Li Ka-shing � the Chinese billionaire who owns a 3% stake
in Jardine Matheson Limited and has sat on the board of HSBC � has been accused of being a member of Chinese intelligence as well
as being associated with the narcotics trade.
42
Indeed, the latter allegation arose repeatedly during my investigation of Project Hammer, while the use of HSBC as an "authorized
six-point laundry" was also mentioned. Meanwhile, the description of "centralized rediscounting facilities" referenced by the authors
of Dope, Inc . is suggestive,
to this writer at least, of collateral trading techniques.
Such connections are almost endless, it seems. Take, for example, the rise to fortune of Peter Munk, Chairman of Barrick Gold
which was formed in Toronto, Canada, in 1983, with the majority stake being held by the Saudi royal family middleman and arms dealer,
Adnan Khashoggi. Khashoggi had long been associated with Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos and the so-called Marcos gold.
Indeed, so trusted was he that Marcos had him fronting for two "eclipsed" Marcos accounts � one in the name of Etablissement
Mabari with the private Swiss bank of Lombard Odier & Cie, and the other in the name of Etablissement Gladiator
at COGES Corraterie Gestion SA , Geneva.
Of interest, too, is the fact that Sir Henry Keswick is reported to have been responsible for "lifting" Munk to a new career,
although he also received patronage from Australia's now-deceased multi-billionaire businessman Sir Peter Abeles.
43
Sir Peter received considerable attention in Jonathan Kwitny's excellent book,
The
Crimes of Patriots , because of his alleged Mafia connections and close association with Bernie Houghton and Michael Hand in
the CIA drug smuggling laundry, the Nugan Hand Bank � which also arranged to ship gold bullion surreptitiously for Marcos.
At this point, it is worth reminding readers that Brigadier-General Erle Cocke � whom I referenced earlier concerning his affidavit
detailing his knowledge and involvement in Project Hammer � was reported by Kwitny to be a key player in the Nugan Hand Bank.
And Project Hammer is said to be a general continuation of Nugan Hand Bank activity.
MARITIME FINANCING
The ties that bind are kept hidden from public view.
Activities such as the one we have been discussing are made to operate on an "arms length" basis to confuse and also to ensure
deniability.
Following these subterranean and diverse threads can easily perplex the investigator, and patience and persistence are required
to arrive at the reality that is hidden behind all the smoke and mirrors. The story of Puffin Investments is a case in point.
During a number of extensive telephone interviews with the Canadian, Barrie Wamboldt, it was hinted that it would be worthwhile
to look into the activities of an Alan Shepherd and a firm of his called Puffin Investments. Readers will remember that Barrie Wamboldt
was involved with Project Hammer and had worked with General Cocke and Paul Green to recover Project Hammer funds.
Puffin Investment Company Limited, a Bahamas company, was owned by Old Harrovian Alan Shepherd, who had connections to the British
royal family resulting from generous donations he made to the Royal Windsor Horse Show, of which he was vice president.
In March 2001, Shepherd and Puffin Investments were involved in a High Court action initiated by the Financial Services Authority
� the government watchdog � for enticing investors to put up money for a "sham" investment trading programme. According to the
Sunday Express newspaper, reporting on the court case, up-front fees paid by investors on the promise of massive returns were
not repaid. 44
A week later, on 1 April 2001, the Sunday Express carried a further report detailing a lawsuit against Alan Shepherd, his American
wife Sherry and previous Conservative Party "grandee" Sir Edward du Cann, who was the former Chairman of City merchant bank Keyser
Ullman.
Sir Edward was earlier involved in Tradeswind, an arms trading company in which he was a director with Tiny Rowland of Lonrho
fame and the Egyptian, Ashraf Marwan � known as "Dr Death". Earlier in his career, du Cann served as Chairman of Lonrho, thus working
alongside board directors such as British MI6 luminary Nicholas Elliot.
45
Shepherd, his wife Sherry and du Cann were being sued for �1.25 million in a dispute involving the search for "one of the world's
most fabulous buried treasures". The treasure in question was "30 tons of gold statues, bullion, doubloons and precious stones",
stolen by Scottish pirate Captain William Thompson. The treasure was currently valued at �500 million.
The lawsuit was brought by Richard Bethell of the Bermuda-based Hart Group , who alleged that Shepherd and du Cann were
guilty of "misrepresentations" over an agreement for the provision of various "services" to Shepherd's planned treasure hunt.
One cannot help but be reminded of stories that have circulated in the past concerning gold plundered by the Japanese during WWII
and hidden in the Philippines � later to be recovered and "laundered" as treasure retrieved from Spanish galleons that had sunk while
traveling from Peru to Spain. A variation of this story is the recovery of lost "pirate treasure" � otherwise known as gold � on
the Cocos Islands.
Richard Bethell � elevated to Lord Westbury following the recent death of his father � is a former SAS and Scots Guards officer
and, like Alan Shepherd, an Old Harrovian. The Hart Group, of which he is the Chief Executive Officer, is one of a number of companies
that form the Global Marine Security Systems Company (GMSSCO).
A distinct cynic � as this writer has become � would easily conclude that a marked similarity in structure exists between GMSSCO
and Rolf van Rooyen's South African Eastcorp Syndicate that was closely allied with the London network of Executive Outcomes.
For example, companies belonging to the Eastcorp Syndicate also had a maritime and security theme.
APARTHEID'S
MISSING BILLIONS
But the similarity doesn't end there.
Lord Westbury is currently serving as Chief Executive Officer of Defense Systems Limited (DSL), which, as we have already seen,
is an integral member of the London network of the Palace Group (named so because of its close proximity to the royal family's official
London residence, Buckingham Palace).
46
Moreover, Executive Outcomes has been described as "the advance guard for major business interests engaged in a latter-day scramble
for the mineral wealth of Africa".
47
This is a particularly incisive description, and readers of the first part of this series will recall that one aspect of Project
Hammer apparently involved the disappearance of substantial quantities of gold reserves, as well as stocks of De Beers diamonds,
just prior to the takeover of the Republic of South Africa in 1994 by Nelson Mandela and the ANC. This theft has become known as
"apartheid's missing billions".
Defense Systems Limited has a client list that comes straight from the top drawer and includes oil and gas companies like British
Petroleum, Shell and British Gas of the UK and Amoco, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil and Texaco of the United States. Major mining and mineral
extraction companies such as Canada's Cambior and De Beers and Anglo American of South Africa also feature, as does the giant US
construction firm, Bechtel.
Another client is Canadian-based Ranger Oil, which by happy coincidence is the same name as an entity that forms part of the Palace
Group and which is run by arms trader Mick Ranger.
By miraculous good fortune, Mick Ranger was also a board member of Bridge SA � one of the entities formed and run by Rolf van
Rooyen and Riaan Stander. Meanwhile, Sandline, which many knowledgeable insiders believe is Executive Outcomes by another name, has
a client base that includes Rio Tinto Zinc.
DSL is now owned by Armor Holdings, Inc. of Jacksonville, Florida, but is still headquartered in London. This affiliation seems,
on the face of it, to be a particularly binding one, for Armor Holdings is said to have its very own US spook-type "network".
48
The senior executives of Armor Holdings are predominantly bankers of one strain or another. Take, for example, Thomas W. Strauss,
formerly a Vice Chairman of Salomon Brothers, the Wall Street investment bank that was once minority owned by the Oppenheimers' Anglo
American and De Beers strategic holding company, Minorco.
49
Until 1993, Salomons owned the controlling interest in the Bank of New York, which, as you will recall, is the current affiliated
clearing bank of Gregory Serras's Vanguard Capital. Today, Salomons is owned by Citigroup.
50
We might also mention Armor Holdings director Burtt R. Ehrlich, whose family securities firm, Ehrlich and Boger , is owned
by Cater Allen Bank of the Channel Islands, which specializes in "offshore finance"; likewise, Nicholas Sokolow, formerly
a partner in the Wall Street firm of Coudert Brothers , and Warren B. Canders, a former Senior Vice President of Orion
Bank Ltd , a merchant bank owned by the Royal Bank of Canada.
A subsidiary of Armor Holdings is the very shadowy United States Defense Systems, Inc. (USDS), which on paper is based
in Chantilly, Virginia, although its real operating headquarters are in Manassas, Virginia.
Staff recruited by USDS are usually former military types or specialists with criminal intelligence backgrounds and possessing
surveillance skills. They are usually told they will be working in support of Department of Defense programmes and will require a
DoD security clearance.
Operations in the past have included surveillance of US citizens during Fourth of July events at Capitol Mall in DC.
51
BIN LADEN AND SAUDI ARABIAN LINKS
A Google Internet search using the search term "Armor Holdings, Inc." revealed a curious message dated September 2001 from
an aggrieved investor:
"I'm horrified to find one of my investments is in a company with links to bin Laden. Apparently it is common knowledge in
London that a senior figure in Armor, Ambrose Cary, has familial ties to bin Laden and uses those in his work.
How can it be allowed that a US company providing security to US companies, embassies and airports round the world can deal
simultaneously with this type of person? Does anyone else have further information on this?"
Unsurprisingly, no answer to the question has been posted.
52
Had this been the first bin Laden connection, it is likely I would have ignored it. However, the name had already arisen during
a deposition given by Rolf van Rooyen to German police in 1995, following his detention and questioning. At that time, he admitted
to being "involved" with a Jean Ruiz, of Saudi Finance.
53
Saudi Finance (Saudifin), headquartered in Geneva, owned a controlling interest in Banque Al Saoudi via the Paris-based holding
company, Saudi Arab Finance Corporation . Banque Al Saoudi was, according to a 1999 PBS Online Frontline story, one of the
principal international financing vehicles for the bin Laden family.
Interestingly, in 1989 � in the early stages of Project Hammer's timeline � Banque Al Saoudi would have collapsed in bankruptcy
had it not been for the timely intervention of the French central bank, the Banque de France, which shored it up prior to a partial
takeover by none other than Banque Indosuez, which decided to change its name to Banque Fran�aise pour l'Orient.
A year later, the bank merged with the Mediterran�e Group. Of note is the fact that a subsidiary, Saudifin SA, was active in Panama
until 1997, when it was dissolved.
54
Moreover, the Frontline story revealed that both Banque Al Saoudi and Banque Indosuez were "instrumental" in financing a portion
of Middle East weapons contracts during the 1970s and 1980s.
Meanwhile, those who are familiar with the story of black gold will recall that Dr Ole Bay was the controller on behalf of the
CIA and US Treasury in the YAB/42 bullion transaction that involved then President Marcos of the Philippines. This transaction was
structured to use cut-outs including Navegocian Global SA and DuPont , along with other CIA conduits, to make it ostensibly
a private, non-government transaction.
The transaction code YAB/42 is also instructive. Not only does "YAB" spelled backwards yield the name "BAY" but, altogether, 42
"major trusts were tapped to help fund" the deal. Coincidentally, 42 is also the number of countries in which Santa Romana gold was
deposited in the immediate post-WWII years to form the Black Eagle fund, discussed earlier.
55
One of the more salient facts about the Puffin Investments fiasco is that Alan Shepherd's American wife, Sherry, is the daughter
of Dr Ole Bay. Dr Bay is known to have been the "Master Wizard" who arranged and ran the Project Hammer trading programme.
According to one former intelligence source familiar with the inner workings of Project Hammer, Dr Bay had told him that the ultimate
responsibility for Hammer lay with the CIA and the US Treasury, and that Robert Rubin � who later became US Treasury Secretary �
acted as Dr Bay's "gofer" on the project. Robert Rubin is now a director and Chairman of the Executive Committee of Citigroup.
If one had to choose a word to describe these apparently diverse connections, that word would surely have to be "incestuous".
Currently, Li Ka-shing (whom we mentioned earlier) is bidding to purchase control of the global communication network giant, Global
Crossing (which was also mentioned earlier), via a joint venture of Ka-shing's Hutchison Whampoa and Singapore Technologies
Telemedia . Representing Ka-Shing's bid to take control of Global Crossing was the powerful neo-conservative attorney, Richard
Perle, who sought a nod of approval from the Pentagon for the deal.
Perle, who is one of the present Bush Administration "think-masters", is close to Bush Senior, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz
and to others on the Defense Policy Board , which he chaired. A recent story by legendary investigative reporter Sy Hersh
revealed that Perle had furtively met with a leading Saudi investor in Marseille, France, on 3 January 2003, in what was seen as
an attempt to gain private financial advantage from the planned war on Iraq.
A furious Perle responded to the report by calling Hersh a "terrorist". The meeting was arranged on Perle's behalf by none other
than Adnan Khashoggi (whom we mentioned earlier). Khashoggi also attended the meeting.
Khashoggi, a trusted adviser to the Saudi royal family, is one of the "high net worth individuals" whose past investments have
been handled by Mayo Shattuck, formerly head of Alex. Brown (also mentioned earlier). It is of passing interest that Saudi
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal bin Abdulaziz took a 10% stake in Citigroup (also mentioned earlier) back in 1991, following a cash "infusion"
of US$400 million, which was eclipsed from view by The
Carlyle Group which acted as the
facilitator for the investment.
In 1997, Mayo Shattuck was made Trustee of the Bronfman (also mentioned earlier) family fortune. He resigned as CEO of Deutsche
Banc Alex. Brown on 12 September 2001, the day following the tragic events in New York City and Washington, DC � the day that
has come to be known as "9-11".
56
On 13 September 2001, news reports began circulating of suspicious stock market transactions that suggested prior knowledge of
the events that were to take place on 9-11 .
Short sales of airline and insurance stocks that sharply fell in price in the wake of the 9-11 tragedy were later traced back
to Alex. Brown.
Author's Note
Documents and other exhibits in support of this story are available
HERE .
Endnotes
27. See
http//www.marcosbillions.com
for some additional background on Roberto Benedicto and his willingness to front for Marcos. Additionally, I have a two-page
Marcos document listing details of the numerous bank accounts he controlled either directly or through others.
28. See Luigi DiFonzo's
St Peter's Banker (Franklin Watts, New York, 1983).
29. See William Scott
Malone's Golden Fleece (Regardies, October 1988).
30. See "
The Project Hammer File
" part one for background on van Rooyen and Stander's involvement in Project Hammer.
31. See news reports
circa 2000 of BoNY involvement in illegal money laundering activities with IMF funds on behalf of Russian criminal and political
figures.
32. See Everybody's
Business: An Almanac � The Irreverent Guide to Corporate America, edited by Milton Moskowitz, Michael Katz and Robert Levering
(Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1980).
33. Although this
may, of course, just be pure coincidence, it is worth noting.
34. For a comprehensive
account of the MGM/Credit Lyonnais affair, see David McClintick and Anne Faircloth's informative "Predator", which is freely available
on the Internet.
John Brewster - 90
Did you by chance confuse Russia with Italy? Because Russia has close to 150M people, not
65M, significantly more than Germany. Granted, less than USSR back in 1939, but militarily
more powerful compared to Germany - and possibly with more exploited resources.
vk - 79
I tend to agree with the view that the key factor in USSR's demise was that it couldn't
sustain the competition with the Kapital and wasn't able to develop, "progress", "grow" at
the rate the West was showing off. US and USSR levels were far closer back in 1950 than in
1980, and the discrepancy was only growing. Reagan fanboys might argue that he sped up the
decaying process, but troubles and upheavals were going to happen, no matter what. Now, why
this rate of progress was so different is another matter, and probably the most important one
- both for 20th century history and for the fate of the West in this century.
It's also painfully obvious that the only path outside downright servitude for Europe is to
distance itself from the USA and seek if not a direct alliance at least a clear partnership
with Russia and a "detente" with clear rules on their borders and a common declaration of
neutrality over Ukraine - as in: no side will try to annex the whole country, which either
would be split up or ideally would have a heavy dose of decentralization and localism. But it
is of vital importance for the actual survival of Europe that atlanticists and Russiaphobes
be hunted down and expelled from any position of power or influence - be it from economy,
media, politics.
First Worlders commenting here seem to have the illusion Christianism is the good brother
of the three Abrahamic religions. Although I understand the pro-Christian bias coming from
the Europeans (since Christianism is an inextricable aspect of European identity), this
opinion is a myth: we have already tasted this in the Bolivian coup, but it's also a Latin
American phenomenon.
Christians are wolves under sheep skins.
--//--
@ Posted by: pogohere | Dec 9 2019 1:25 utc | 57
The USSR had a relatively backwards transportation system (specially railways), that still
used disproportional quantities of petroil to function, but that wasn't an existential threat
to the nation per se , it could be modernized.
Of all the theses I've read about the collapse of the USSR, the one that most convinced me
was Angelo Segrillo's "Decline of the USSR" - which I think only exists in Portuguese right
now. Segrillo covers all the arguments of the time used to explain the fall of the USSR and
refutes them all empirically before he lays out that the main cause of the fall of the USSR
was its structural inability to implement the Third Industrial Revolution ("toyotism").
When it became clear the USSR wouldn't be able to keep up technologically with the USA,
Gorbachev then decided (without knowing it) it would be preferrable for the USSR to disappear
than to continue to exist as a non-superpower.
In that sense, yes, the Soviet then relatively inneficient energy use was a symptom of the
underlying cause - but it wasn't the cause.
--//--
@ Posted by: bevin | Dec 9 2019 3:03 utc | 62
The problem with Europe is its geography: it is a tiny, depleted peninsula. In the 17th
Century, it was an advantage, since the lack of natural resources impelled it to aggressively
exploit other continents, giving birth to capitalism.
But capitalism is a global system, not a regional system. When it reached maturity, Europe
slowly, but inexorably, begun to lose its competitive advantages over purely capitalist
formations - the greatest of them all being the USA. Then what was an advantage became a
disadvantage.
This gordian knot was cut with WWI and WWII (both were only one war, in two parts) - a
last desperate attempt by British capitalism to preserve its imperialist status.
But History is unasailable: it is the saga of class struggle, of the contradictions
between the modes of production and the relations of production. The result couldn't be any
different: Western Europe was on its knees after WWII. The British Empire had just sold all
its assets to the Americans and German men were literally prostituting themselves to American
soldiers for on cigarette (and German children, for one chocolate bar). The USA was the
undisputed sovereign of the European Peninsula from 1945 on.
The last leverage the European Peninsula had, in that scenario, was the USSR itself: it
could ask the USA for good treatment and some dignity in exchange of not doing socialist
revolutions backed up by the Soviets. The result was the Marshall Plan and a permission to
revive their previous industrial parks.
That situation resulted in the rise of Atlanticism, the ideology that the USA is the
legitimate heir of Western Civilization. Andy Warhol was the successor to Michelangelo.
--//--
@ Posted by: john brewster | Dec 9 2019 4:35 utc | 65
The USSR stagnated during the period that spanned from the oil crisis of 1975 until its
fall in 1991.
But it only had a recession in two years of its history: the year after the Perestroika
and its last year of existence. Both were very mild recessions (by capitalist standards).
Even during the infamous "Brezhnev stagnation", growth was 1-3% per year - comparable to
the developed capitalist nations since the 1990s.
But the problem is that its successor states are doing objectively worse: Russia will
grown a little more than 1% this year; other ex-Soviet states are more or less in the same
situation (with Ukraine doing outright worse). The mircle promised to the Russians didn't
come: Putin's boom of the early 2000s was not comparable to the Soviet boom. Russia's status
today are completely dependent on China (which, ironically, has the Soviet system of
government) and the modernization from the old Soviet weapons and know-how it already
had.
Chile - it's not just the level of inequality and austerity in the country that triggered
the social uprising against the elite. On the OECD's 'better life' index, Chile scores very
badly even compared to other Latin American countries.
The OECD index allows you to compare well-being across countries, based on 11 topics the
OECD has identified as essential, in the areas of material living conditions and quality of
life.
The Indian economy is heading into trouble - to all intent, in recession. The
second-largest country in the world by population grew only 4.5 percent year-on-year in the
third quarter of 2019, below 5 percent in the previous period and market expectations of
4.7 percent. That's the weakest pace since the first three months of 2013, mainly due to a
fall in factory output and exports and a slowdown in investment.
Investment, sluggish for nearly a decade, grew a mere 1 per cent year-on-year, down from
4 per cent in the previous quarter. Manufacturing output contracted 1 per cent.
Infrastructure investment has collapsed.
The government has announced several measures to boost growth including a reduction in
corporate taxes, concessions on vehicle purchases, bank recapitalisation. Meanwhile, the
central bank has already cut borrowing cost 5 times this year and is seen lowering rates
again next week.
This is a very interesting example of how Western (i.e. libera, capitalist) propaganda
works, and also a very illustrative example of how capitalism declined from the point of view
of a person who benefitted the most from it when it was at its apex:
The shock in the US was that the Russians were not only competitive, but had embarrassed US
science and engineering by being first. In 1958, President Eisenhower signed into law the
National Defense Education Act, and this enabled talented students to flow into science and
engineering. The shock waves were felt throughout the entire educational system, from top
to bottom. Mathematics was more important than football.
He's right in the abovementioned paragraph. If you interviewed people who were 12-14 years
old between 1958 and 1963, and asked about what would be the future of the USA in the year
2000, most of them would have more or less the same answer: that the future of America was
scientific, bright, of high technology; a nation where scientists and engineers would be more
more venerated than tv celebrities and football/baseball players. It would be the world of
the infamous "flying cars" and space exploration and colonization.
Nobody in 1963 would imagine that the USA of the 2000s would be the USA of finance,
of Wall Street ; of football players, of the anti-vaxxers, of the flat earthers and of
the Kardashians.
But they should've. The reason this degeneration happened is the fact that the USA is a
capitalist society. In capitalism, scientific progress is accidental. What matters in the
capitalist system is the valorization process, not the process of use value creation. Like
any other societal formations, capitalism has a revolutionary period, an apex period, a
decline period and a collapse period. In my opinion, world capitalism has just exited its
apex phase and is now entering its decline phase.
Here's the propaganda part of the article:
As demonstrated by the USSR, socialism does not prohibit scientific prowess. There is a
difference, of course. Socialism's success in the USSR came at the expense of millions of
lives, the slave labor of millions more, and a lower standard of living. Nevertheless, the
fact is that Yuri Gagarin was the first person to orbit the earth. In comparison to the US
today, Soviet universities were not plagued by whining children – nor are today's
Chinese universities. The Soviets thought it wiser that their young study calculus and
physics.
This paragraph encapsulates all the elements of Cold War propaganda about the USSR. When I
read it, it felt like a blast from the past.
First, the image of the USSR as essentially a slavery society is a Western chimera. They
come from Weber -- who once theorized the USSR as a "modern Ancient Egypt" -- and the
propaganda from Solzhenitsyn, who hugely exagerated the number of prisoners in the USSR.
In fact, even at the height of the GULAG era, the USSR's jailed population never went
beyond 1.5% of its overall population (as we know now from Soviet official archives). That's
well within the world's average. If only 1.5% of the population is able to sustain the other
98.5%, then even I want to know how the Soviets operated such an economic miracle.
Besides, the USSR obviously didn't kill "millions of people" in order to send someone to
space. That's obviously absurd by any metric, logic included. First of all because this would
never gather political consensus among the population, second because it is impossible to do
rocket science with slave labor.
The quick rise of the Third Reich gave birth to the myth in the West that slave labor can
operate miracles. Nothing is further from the truth. In Ancient times, both the Greeks and
the Romans already knew slave labor was only economically viable in very basic and simple
tasks, such as agriculture, mining and other domestic services. Athens achieved naval
supremacy over Greece by using wage labor for its rowing and sailor crews, so that they could
be professionals with high morale in the battlefield. The reason for this is that maneuvering
triremes was an extremely complex art, too complex and valuable for the Athenians to trust to
slaves. They also had, by the nature and complexity of the task, a naturally high degree of
freedom from their "bosses". Either way, the task was simply too complex for a slave to
phisically learn, since a slave was kept into his/her place through physical deprivation and
domination, and a sailor had to be always fit physically and mentally to wage wars at sea.
The Spartans didn't slave their coastal colonies, giving them a much larger degree of freedom
(perioikoi), probably in exchange for a supply of sailors, ships. The Romans also did the
same: when a slave became specialized enough in the family business (such as acting as a
middle man in the paterfamilias' businesses in some coastal city), he usually "gifted" him
with his freedom.
In sum: even the ancients knew that, for more complex tasks, free people were a must.
Slavery was only economically viable for very simple and denigrating tasks (specially,
agriculture and mining).
As for the "lower quality of living", that's highly debatable. Surely, on average, the
USSR certainly didn't enjoy the same life quality than the top of the capitalist chain of the
time. But inequality was much, much lower (almost negligible) except for the rural-urban
divide, and there was no deprivation.
On average, life quality in the USSR was much better than the vast majority of the
capitalist nations with the benefit inequality was negligible (so the average approached the
median). Sure, it was no post-1980s Norway or Finland -- but those are microscopic capitalist
nations, with negligible population.
Thanks vk. The Soviet achievements in space were the achievements of a free people who had
to make superhuman sacrifices in order to preserve their freedom. Here's Boris Chertok, a
remarkable Soviet space designer whose experiences stretched from the crowds of 1917 and
Lenin's funeral to the construction of the international Space Station:
"I am part of the generation that suffered irredeemable losses, to whose lot in 20th
century fell the most arduous of tests. From childhood, a sense of duty was inculcated in
this generation - a duty to the people, to the Motherland, to our parents, to future
generations, and even to all humanity.
...
Currently ... it is ideological collapse that threatens the objective recounting of
[Soviet] science and technology ... motivated by the fact that its origins date back to the
Stalin epoch or to the period of the 'Brezhnev Stagnation'"
Video: How the U.S. Caused the Breakup of the Soviet UnionSean Gervasi 1992
Lecture By Sean
Gervasi and Dennis Riches Global Research,
November 30, 2019 Region: Russia and FSU , USA Theme: History
We bring to the attention of Global Research readers the text of an unpublished Lecture
delivered in 1992 by the late Sean Gervasi on the history of the collapse of the Soviet Union
and the US Strategy formulated during World War II to bring down the USSR.
The full transcript and video of Sean Gervasi's presentation is preceded by Dennis Riches
Introduction
Scroll down for the Video
Introduction
We defeated totalitarianism and won a war in the Pacific and the Atlantic simultaneously
We worked together in a completely bipartisan way to bring down communism So now we have to use
our political processes in our democracy, and then decide to act together to solve those
problems. But we have to have a different perspective on this one. It [global warming] is
different from any problem we have ever faced before [i] – Al Gore
These words above were spoken by former US vice-president Al Gore in 2007 in his film An
Inconvenient Truth . Because audiences at the time were in rapt awe of him, treating him as
a savior in the campaign to solve the global warming crisis, they never seemed to reflect on
the outrageous assumptions underlying his comments about "defeating totalitarianism" and
"bringing down communism." These are worth examining for what they say about perceptions of
world history among the American political class, and they even hint at how the errors in these
perceptions led Mr. Gore to being self-deceived about what would be necessary to solve the
problem he has devoted himself to since he has been out of power.
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
Scroll down for the full Transcript
https://www.youtube.com/embed/b9_aYcpxClA
Byline of the video:
Propaganda expert reveals details in 1992 of RAND Think Tank plan under Reagan to bring down
USSR, the major socialist challenge to capitalism in crisis, called Operation Full Court Press
when announced at a Reagan limited invitee press conference upon its launch. It involved
targeting mid-level Soviet bureaucrats with publications and Air America broadcasts pointing to
problems they were facing having better outcomes in the US, military provocations when they
were considering their budget in order to spend them into bankruptcy, luring them into
Afghanistan followed by arming the Mujahadeen with surface to air missiles and such; and
fanning flames of ethnic rivalries within the Soviet Union, like by sending publication
equipment to Baltic ethnic groups.
In first 20 minutes Sean prophetically lays out the impending crisis of capitalism that
drives their urgency to stamp out socialist competition. Sean died under mysterious
circumstances in Belgrad where he had set up shop pointing out a PR effort in the US Congress
by Ruder Finn hired by Croats and Kosovo Albanians to start a US war against Yugoslavia for
their secession.
Event January 26, 1992 arranged by Connie Hogarth of WESPAC, Camera: Beth
Lamont
Transcript
(edited by Dennis Riches)
Introduction
I've been speaking in the last year or so about developments in the Soviet Union from the
perspective of a person who follows the workings of the Western intelligence agencies,
something in which I was tutored while I was working at the United Nations, and was on the
receiving end of quite a lot of that activity.
That is an important theme that one needs to look at: the role of the West in developments
which have taken place in the Soviet Union, and it's one that I've been focusing on, but of
course the wider and more important issue is: how shall we understand the meaning of events in
the Soviet Union in the last five, six, ten years? That's really the critical question.
As you know, the developments, particularly the end or collapse of communist rule in the
Soviet Union, and finally the breakup of the Soviet Union itself, have been presented in our
media insistently and incessantly as evidence that socialism or social democracy, or
what-have-you, which we'll discuss, is unworkable. And this, of course, in tandem with the
theme which has been disseminated so energetically by these same people in the last decade,
that capitalism:
a) is more or less the same thing as democracy, and
b) must be seen as the core and triumphant achievement of Western civilization
Hence the thesis that this is the end of history, that we have achieved everything that
there is to achieve, that the present system of institutions in which we live in the West
represents the pinnacle of human capacities, intellectually and organizationally, and is the
best of all possible worlds.
That's the thesis, or those are the twin theses which surround us and which have been, I
think, creating an enormous amount of confusion and consternation because I think people sense
there is something wrong with this idea, and the effort to close off all discussion about
alternatives to, what I would term, our "regime" in the United States today, and possibly in
Western Europe, which is a moving backward from the more enlightened and liberal capitalism,
liberal democracy and capitalism, which evolved after the Second World War in Western Europe
and the United States.
We are today, I think, living in an irrational and savage capitalism of the 19th-century
variety, which for particular reasons, people who have power in this society either have
acceded to or have energetically worked to institute.
Part 1 The Crisis in the United States
The question is whether this great wave of propaganda makes any sense, and so I think we
should examine whether the idea that socialism and alternatives to raw capitalism are
impossible, undesirable, and unworkable. I think we have to look at that in two ways. First of
all, we have to examine our own situation in the United States, historically, and we have to
also, I think, look at what has happened in the Soviet Union because what has happened in the
Soviet Union is really very different from what we are told by the mass media. We have not
merely witnessed a collapse of communism in the Soviet Union. We have seen something really
very different, but it has been systematically misrepresented in the Western media.
There's a great deal of misunderstanding about the kind of society that American democracy
really represents, and that misunderstanding is both historical and contemporary. There is a
tremendous tension which we are all aware of in our society. It is a tension between
egalitarianism and inequality. It is a tension born of the evolution in the in the 16th, 17th
and 18th century in England, and the transfer of a particular kind of society onto American
soil through British political traditions, notwithstanding our rebellion as colonists at the
end of the 18th century. And that is the particular set of institutions known as liberal
democracy. Liberal democracy is a combination of parliamentary government and capitalism, and
liberal democracy inevitably, therefore, contains some very serious tensions because the
progressive development of parliamentary democracy has tended to give greater and greater scope
to the principle of equality in human life and politics. That's why in the course of British
19th century political development there was a progressive expansion of the franchise. And
that's why in the United States there was also an expansion of the franchise. The United States
did not have the same encumbering property qualifications in the beginning, although we did
have property qualifications in the 18th century in the United States, but eventually we had
the full franchise extended to all adults, and we've been redefining adults most recently.
We've dropped the level of political maturity or political enfranchisement to 18 years.
Capitalism, on the contrary, is a system of economic and social institutions based on the
principle of inequality, and there's a rationale for that inequality which also comes from the
18th century, but the idea, essentially, is that it makes sense from the point of view of
efficiency, and indeed equity, given all the considerations that one must take into account, to
have a society based on the unequal distribution of property organized around that institution,
to have an economy based on private property because, in the final analysis, it is most
efficient, and in the long run holds the greatest promise of continuous progress. By the way,
that's an argument that Marx made at a certain point -- that at a certain stage of history a
capitalist society is extremely progressive, that it gathers the technical capacities of
mankind, personkind, and develops them and accumulates and accumulates until it creates
something new, which we won't talk about just now.
But historically and currently in the United States we very strongly sense this tension so
that we go back and forth between periods when we have enormous pressures to give predominance
to the principle of inequality, to pay attention to the rights of property, and periods when
egalitarian tendencies have been very strong. For instance, as in the turn of the century
during the expansive phase of American populism and during the antitrust of the great popular
movements that sought -- not just popular -- but that sought to contain the power of the
cartels and the trusts in the United States. And today we sense that too. We passed the law in
1946 that's called the Employment Act. By the way, it's not called the Full Employment Act. You
have to remember that legislation. And yet we realize that our adherence to the principle of
full employment was tenuous even in the 25 years which followed the Second World War, and
completely spurious today. Why is that? It's because of this tremendous tension between the
realities of power under capitalism and the rather fragile hold which democratic principles and
institutions have on that power.
Let's go back to the Constitution and the Philadelphia Convention. I've been rereading Beard
and I'm very impressed by his grasp of who predominates really in this delicate balance in
liberal democracy between the principles of egalitarianism, the principles of parliamentary
democracy and the enormous concentration of power, which even then was inherent in the
dominance of the institutions of private property. Beard's argument essentially is that in the
final analysis a small group of men, whom he refers to as one-sixth of the adult male
population -- the only people who ratified the Constitution, the participants in the ratifying
conventions who voted positively for the Constitution -- represented one-sixth of the adult
male population. That is to say 8% of the adult population in today's terms. Against our values
that represents 8% of today's population -- the equivalent.
Now, what was obtained in that framing of the Constitution? What was obtained was a system
of political science, a system of government which was so structured as to ensure the dominance
of private property, the power of private property in any contention between the forces of
democracy and the forces of private property, and the forces of inequality, if you like, so
that the structure which constitutes, at the founding of this republic, which constitutes the
framework within which we operate today, is one which ensures that predominance.
I know that Beard has been attacked by many people, and it's perfectly understandable when
you read Beard carefully, but it seems to me that today Beard becomes more illuminating. Why? I
say I pay attention to the Constitution, to the Philadelphia Convention, to its ratification,
to the numbers who ratified it and to the purposes which they saw themselves as furthering by
their framing and ratification of this constitution because that is the framework within which
the United States experienced the most successful and untrammeled Industrial Revolution in the
history of mankind. Untrammeled. We had a straight run of industrialization which was the first
to transform the condition of man in human society, by which I mean something very, very
specific. And here I speak to things which were said by people like [ John Maynard] Keynes , by people like [
Joseph Alois] Schumpeter ,
but really ignored because they're extremely uncomfortable.
The rationalization for inequality in the institution of private property, in the thinking
of eighteenth century philosophers, was that property had to be shared unequally and income had
to be unequal because this inequality provided incentives which would constitute a constant
assurance of the drive to the expansion of production. That was the rationalization, but in the
20th century, according to the economic historians and according to people like Keynes,
countries like the United States and Great Britain began to end, began to transform the
historical situation within which these institutions were conceived. How? By developing such a
capacity to produce that gradually more and more numbers were lifted out of anything which
could be historically or comparatively called poverty so that scarcity, which dominates the
reasoning of economists, was really beginning to end in many respects. And Joseph Schumpeter
was able to say, for instance, in 1928, that if economic growth continued in the United States
for another 50 years we would see in 1978 the end of anything that could reasonably be called
poverty.
Now that didn't quite happen. That didn't quite happen because of the enormous influence of
inequality in the distribution of this productive abundance. But what it did transform was the
lives of many, many people, and it transformed everyday life and the historical condition. Look
between 1870 and 1970 at how the number of hours that the average American works falls. In the
period between 1945 and 1970, per capita production trebled, just in that period, and we
already had a huge industrial base at that time, so I would argue [agree], with Galbraith, who
-- because he was right was vilified and ignored by the economist profession and studiously
made little of by the mass media -- that indeed America began to be transformed with the
success of its enormous industrial revolution by the end of the period after 1865, when really
heavy industrialization began to take place. And indeed I would argue that the reason for the
Great Depression was that the United States had lost the ability to continue to absorb
everything that it could produce in an adequate way, given the institutions of the time.
So what happened then was that within this framework, which is the same framework conceived
by the James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. To further the purposes of property and to insure
against what Madison called "the leveling attacks of democracy," we have industrialization
enhance the expansion of an enormous power, which is the power that controls the machinery and
the resources of that productive system. That is to say large corporations. The largest 500
corporations in the United States today, plus the largest 500 banks and the largest 50
financial corporations control more resources than the Soviet planners ever dreamed of
controlling. The control of those resources, which is made invisible by the clever workings of
economists, inheres in the ability to make investment decisions. Investment decisions are the
key decisions in any economic system. The power to make those decisions is the power to
continuously transform and to determine the terms of everyday life among human beings in any
society. That power is not only invisible in our system of thought, carefully hidden by the
descendants of the 18th century philosophers, but it is also totally unaccountable.
Now maybe you could say, and we did say this between 1945 and 1975:
"OK this is a contradiction of democracy. This is the inheritance from the Philadelphia
Convention, the Constitution in its ratification and the dominance of this one-sixth of the
male adult population in 1789, but this system is so productive that we can alleviate the
resulting social and political tensions by raising the standard of living of ordinary
folks."
And that was the whole philosophy of the sophisticated American leadership in the first
generation after the Second World War. That was the philosophy of the Rockefellers when they
talked about the new enlightened capitalism of 20th century. Capitalism could deliver the goods
and hence people would be content, despite the fact that the realities of power born at the end
of the 18th century, and essentially enhanced by the enormous accumulation of power represented
by industrialization and the growth of large corporations and their concentrated power in the
economy. We could live with that because the United States economy was so productive.
Now, that's our history, and the tremendous tension of our situation today as contrasted
with the post-war period because one thing is very clear today: that for 20 years in the United
States this system has not been working. There has been a systematic retreat from full
employment, high wages, advancing standards of living, security in one's job, and the advance
of the welfare state. We have systematically been retreating from those things so that we have
higher and higher official and real unemployment, which of course is about double the official
unemployment -- and the statisticians work very hard to hide the realities of
life.
Sean Gervasi
Between 1977 and 1992, according to the Congressional Budget Office, 70% of American
families have seen their after-tax income fall. 70%! In the lower ranges of the income
distribution those falls are quite sharp. Purchasing power falls by twenty 20.8% for the
poorest fifth, by something like 12% for the next fifth, by something like 11% for the third
fifth, and by smaller amounts for those in the middle of the income distribution system. So I
would say that that represents, and people are increasingly becoming aware of it, a collapse of
the American standard of living. And this collapse of the American standard of living is
related to a gradual economic decline which is causing the post-war system, as we have known it
in the United States between 1945 and 1970, to begin to disintegrate. And I think this is the
reality of what is happening so that today even according to Wall Street forecasters like the
Levies, attached to Bard
College up here in the county, we are facing what they call a contained depression, which
may be worse than the kind of depression we saw in the 1930s because the stabilizing role of
the government makes it possible not to avoid some of the awful horrors that occurred in
the depression, but to diminish them to a degree which makes them almost invisible.
So we have a very tense situation. I ask you to reflect on that when we confront the
enormous economic difficulties from which there follow all kinds of social problems in our
society today which we face. These are connected to, and, if you like, made possible by the
arrangements conceived by James Madison and Alexander Hamilton . If this crisis which we have
been living in for 20 years, and have become more acutely aware of in the last 10, is
intractable, it is, above all, intractable because of this invisible concentrated power which
exists today after industrial growth -- the rise of the large corporations in the framework
conceived by Madison, Hamilton and the other Federalists.
So if you want to argue today that we need to reconsider this framework, you run into very
fundamental problems. You run into the problem that the Constitution is treated like an icon,
that people are unaware that the preamble to the Declaration of Independence is not the law of
the United States, that people are unaware of the fact that the Bill of Rights, which is
supposed to compensate for some of the failings of our constitutional system, has been
systematically shredded by the two most recent administrations. Witness William Kunstler and
his remarkable talks on what has happened to the Bill of Rights in the last ten years.
Part 2 The Crisis in the Soviet Union
Now, let's get to the Soviet Union, keeping in mind always that it is against this
background of crisis and the intractability of crisis, and it's rooting in the historical
origins of the Constitution that we are asked, that we are invited -- without anybody saying
that that's the background -- that we are invited to ponder the proposition that there is no
alternative to the kind of capitalism that we have, and that this capitalism is the
quintessence of democracy.
Now let us look at that proposition against a second set of data, if you like, which is
supposed to prove the case that there was socialism in the Soviet Union, that the Soviet Union
then, along with its Eastern European partners, collapsed in chaos owing to the essential
unworkability of this kind of a system. Let's look at that.
When the Reagan administration came into office we all became aware rather quickly that
something new was happening. We should have known that something new was happening because, in
fact, the arrival of the Reagan administration in power had been preceded by a very careful
build-up which was, in part, visible in the American polity, and that was the emergence of the
development and the elaboration of the power of a group which we now call the new right --
people who 20 years ago, 28 years ago in 1964, after Goldwater lost the Republican National
Convention. Rockefeller took command of the party that had been relegated to what every major
political commentator at the time called the lunatic fringe of the Republican Party. These were
the people who, particularly in California, were coming out of the walls in the late 1970s,
creating foundations, buying chairs of economics at universities. Look at it: the Coors ,
the
Mises , with all of their contacts. These were the people who were building a new group,
and the purpose of this group was to put a stop to the kind of systematic democratic
entrenchment which they thought had been going on in the 1960s and the 1970s.
In the 1960s and the 1970s, there were three movements: (1) the movement for workers'
rights, for unionization, the expansion of unionization, particularly among city employees and
for raising wages, and the tremendous industrial disruption that attended the 1960s and the
early 1970s in the industrial sector, (2) the civil rights movement, which preceded that,
beginning in the late 1950s, and (3) the movement against the war in Vietnam, the war in
Vietnam being one of the ways in which this society managed to utilize, in a profitable
fashion, its enormous productive capacity without giving it to ordinary folks, without giving
its fruits to ordinary folks.
The new right was determined to do something quite new. One of the new things that it did,
and Reagan really was not its spokesman because that implies a degree of activity which I think
he's incapable of. You can always program a spokesman. I don't think he had the wheels to do
that.
Reagan launched, as you know, a massive, serious, intense, ugly confrontation with the
Soviet Union, ideologically. At the same time we became aware that there was a significant
drive on to re-arm the United States, to throw enormous resources -- ultimately it was in
excess of 1.7 trillion dollars during the 1980s -- to throw enormous resources into the
military sector, to throw enormous resources into shifting the technology of the military
sector to war in space, SDI [Space Defense Initiative], etc. All of those things were on the
agenda, but many of us at the time puzzled about this. I remember asking myself, "What is it
with these folks? Do these fellows really want a world war? Can they not see that this can be
the outcome?"
And I remember those discussions, and I remember when many of you and I on June 12, 1982
were at the demonstration of 750,000 to 1 million people in the center of New York City, which
was an expression of the alarm that people felt at this enormous aggressive policy which was
coming out of the Reagan administration, which threatened to shred US-Soviet relations.
But in fact, retrospectively, we can see that there was something else behind it, that it
was not just irrational madness. There was a bit of that, but there was a rationality to what
was being done, and in fact, to understand that, it's important to see that it is connected to
every single major line of innovative policy that the Reagan administration developed. It was
extremely well thought-out, extremely shrewd. And [it involved] the military buildup and the
aggressive rhetoric towards the Soviet Union, the deliberate effort to create difficulties in
the relationships between the Soviet Union and the European powers. You remember that in 1982
the United States tried to force the European powers not to accept natural gas from the Soviet
Union, to deny shipments of technology to the Soviet Union which would make it possible for the
Soviet Union to exploit that natural gas, to earn foreign exchange, etc. It was all part of a
very complex strategy, but it was a very clear strategy.
Let me say, though, that many of us, at least I at the time, missed that. We didn't quite
comprehend what was going on, but we had in the back our mind flickers that something was
wrong. There were people who were saying or hinting clearly at what was happening, and shrewd
people, intelligent people who did begin to grasp what was happening.
Let me quote from one or two. Writing in 1982, Joe Fromm , who was then the editor of the
United States' US News and World Report , said,
"There was something behind," I'm quoting him, "the shift to a harder line in foreign
policy." The US, in fact, seemed to be "waging limited economic warfare against Russia to
force the Soviets to reform their political system." That suggests that's a nice journalist,
a reasonably liberal journalist at US News and World Report , but Joe then quoted a
State Department official saying (actually, a National Security Council official), "The
Soviet Union is in deep, deep economic and financial trouble. By squeezing wherever we can,
our purpose is to induce the Soviets to reform their system. I think we will see results over
the next several years." That's in 1982.
Robert Scheer wrote a book in 1982 called With Enough Shovels: Reagan and Bush and
Nuclear War . I think I've got the title almost right. This is a very interesting book in
which Scheer saw that there was something behind this enormously aggressive foreign policy,
foreign and military policy, that the Reagan administration was deploying. And he saw that the
United States was not simply playing nuclear chicken with the Soviet Union, as he put it, but
that it was embarked on a policy designed to create such pressure for the Soviet Union as to
force changes within the Soviet Union.
Now of course it had always been the case that the Cold War consisted of moves designed to
affect the behavior of others. The Cold War, from the point of view of the West, had always
aimed at modifying, as the State Department cookie pushers liked to put it in their delicate
prose, the behavior of our antagonist. But this, I think you will see, went beyond that
because, in fact, the Reagan administration embarked on a policy of many dimensions which
included pressure around the world on countries with close ties to the Soviet Union.
Insurgencies were initiated in Mozambique, Angola, Cambodia against Vietnam, Nicaragua, and,
quite a lot, Afghanistan.
I don't want to get into too many complicated discussions of Afghanistan, but I think
anybody who reflects upon the United States' response to the Soviet entry into Afghanistan in
1979 must realize that the United States did not want the Soviet Union to leave Afghanistan,
and in fact the purpose of these insurgencies around the world, which as you know, had expended
billions of dollars, was to pin the Soviet Union down, and to inflict economic costs upon the
Soviet Union. The purpose of the remilitarization in the West was to force the Soviet Union, at
the risk of exposing itself to the pressure of escalation, to meet our resource commitments, to
defend itself, or to place itself in a position to resist our pressure.
The purpose of escalating the technology of nuclear warfare, again, was to impose costs upon
the Soviet Union. [This was ] the purpose of every principled measure, such as withholding
advanced technology from the Soviet Union, foreign assistance programs aimed not at assisting
countries on the basis of their needs, but on assisting countries on the basis of the
contribution they would make to putting pressure on the Soviet Union. All of these things were
part of a systematic strategy designed to create havoc in the Soviet Union.
Now I'll say a little bit more about what the purpose of that was, but first let me point
out that this is a systematic strategy consisting of a number of pieces, and that it did pose
enormous economic and other costs upon the Soviet Union.
But who is Gervasi [the speaker] to say that this is so, beyond quoting Joseph Fromm? Well,
let me tell you a little bit about an interesting experience I had. I had lunch one day with a
friend who was passing through the United States, who had been in jail in South Africa for
eight years, and had just got out. He had been engaged in planning one of the principal
sabotage operations against the South African nuclear installations, and he was very happy to
be out of jail. We sat at lunch and he said to me -- we talked about many things, mostly about
Africa which he and I had worked on together -- and he said to me,
"What's going on in the Soviet Union?" I said to him, "Well, you know, I really can't
figure this out. I can't figure out what's going on." He said, "It seems to me that the
Soviet Union is being destabilized." "My goodness," I say to myself quietly.
The thought had never passed my mind, but when my friend, Christie, said this I thought I
should look into this, and I did.
The first thing I found was I spent a little bit of time on a computer and some things came
up, and I said that looks very interesting. Within a very short time I had discovered reams of
material being generated at the end of the 1970s and in the early 1980s by organizations like
the RAND Corporation. You know what the RAND Corporation is. It's an Air Force/CIA contracting
agency in Southern California, very large, very powerful, very influential in the so-called
intellectual defense community, the military industrial complex, and in Washington. People go
back and forth from the CIA, from the DIA to the State Department to the RAND Corporation. And
what were the chaps at the RAND Corporation doing? Well, they were producing very interesting
studies with titles like Economic Factors Affecting Soviet Foreign and Defense Policy :
A Summary Outline , The Costs of the Soviet Empire , Sitting on Bayonets: the
Soviet Defense Burden and Moscow's Economic Dilemma: The Burden of Soviet Defense ,
Exploiting Fault Lines in the Soviet Empire: Economic Relations with the USSR .
Anyway, I started reading the stuff. First of all, I started collecting it and I started
reading this stuff, and I found out something very interesting: that these fellows at the end
of the 1970s and the beginning of the 1980s were clearly fashioning a plan in which we began to
see the pieces of in the emerging parts of foreign and military policy, foreign and military
and economic policy under the Reagan administration. And the basic reasoning of this plan --
I'll give it to you -- is as follows: the Soviet Union was in a dual crisis. They knew what was
going on in Soviet Union. Economic growth in the Soviet Union had begun to slow down. It had
been very rapid, by the way, in the period from 1950 to the early 1970s. Between 1960 and 1984
per capita income and per capita production in the Soviet Union trebled, so it wasn't slow.
That was a 4 or 5% rate of growth, very rapid considering that we're growing at about 1.5
which, is about, by the way, equivalent to the rate of growth on average during the decade of
the 1930s in the United States.
Now, what I found out was that they also understood there was a leadership crisis in the
Soviet Union. The old line of principal Soviet leaders born in the early stages of Soviet
redevelopment after the Revolution, formed in the Second World War -- that leadership was dying
out, as we all knew. And in fact Mikhail Gorbachev , selected by Andrei Gromyko , was the first
representative of a new generation of Soviet leaders, but in the late 70s and early 80s, people
were dying. The major figures Andropov, Chernenko and Brezhnev, were dying, and there was a
very great confusion about succession. So the country was in a kind of crisis. The CIA calls it
a dual crisis, a leadership crisis, not knowing to which new people of a new generation the
leadership of the Soviet Communist Party and the Soviet Union should pass, and at the same time
a beginning of faltering of economic growth, which was serious because since the Soviet Union
had to always, like any country, choose between investing, competing in the arms race, and
raising the standard of living of its population. The fact that economic growth fell off made
that more difficult.
Now the next step in the reasoning of the RAND Corporation, gentlemen and ladies from the
RAND Corporation, was that the United States and its allies could take various actions which
would force the Soviet Union to increase its defense spending and its military assistance to
allies and friends. They could take measures to deny the Soviet Union credits, which they did,
and to deny it technology. They could also take measures which would reduce the overall volume
of resources available to the Soviet Union and hold back the growth of productivity, which
would exacerbate the problem, or force them to shift resources from consumers to investment.
And [they knew] that all of these effects would (to quote them) "aggravate the difficulties
confronting the Soviet leadership in a stagnant economy. So, a combination of these measures to
impose costs on the Soviet Union could be expected to lead to falling investment and/or living
standards, and such measures consequently might generate pressures within the Soviet Union for
withdrawing from the world stage, and for political reform."
So the purpose of this operation, which I will try to define more clearly in a moment, was
to impose, in a variety of ways, enormous costs on the Soviet Union, or to reduce the resources
available to them in such a way as to exacerbate their economic difficulties. Let me quote from
Abraham Becker , one of the shrewder Rand analysts:
Thus the Reagan administration seized Soviet economic troubles as an opportunity to
complicate further their resource allocation difficulties dilemma, in the hope that
additional pressures would result in a reallocation of resources away from defense, or would
push the economy in the directions of economic and political reform.
The purpose of this new aggressive multi-dimensional strategy was to force reform upon the
Soviet Union. What that reform was to be is a later chapter. Now, it's one thing to say that
these plans exist, and I'll talk about other plans. For instance, I managed to pull together a
collection of documents from the National Endowment for Democracy, which as you know, is
supposed to be a quasi-government institution. It's not a quasi-government institution. It's
funded by Congress. It's a government institution funded by Congress, which sees it to be its
business to "promote democracy outside the United States" in the rest of the world, where by
"democracy" one means essentially, and when you come down to it it's clear now in the Soviet
Union, "capitalism" and "liberal democracy," if you like [the latter term].
Now, it's one thing of course to talk about all this planning, to try on your own to reason
that all of these things fit together, but in fact we began to get official indications and
documentation, as early as the spring of 1982, that the government had signed on to this
strategy, that this was not the wild thinking of a few eager folks in a few think tanks, that
it was policy and that it was policy which the American public knew very little of, did not
understand the purposes and consequences of, but would nonetheless be required to pay for to
the tune of several trillion dollars, which did indeed help to create the situation in which we
presently find ourselves at home, locked in the Philadelphia Convention.
In the spring of 1982 I had spoken to two of the participants in this little meeting. A
senior National Security Council official charged with responsibility for Soviet affairs called
a number of influential Washington correspondents and asked them to come to the National
Security Council for a briefing. Two of them told me that they left this briefing extremely
shaken. They didn't want to say too much about it, but they gave me to understand that they
thought that this was an extremely aggressive, dangerous, and highly risky strategy which the
administration was describing and stating that it was about to embark upon.
Helen Thomas of UPI was one of the people who was in that meeting, and she described the
results of the briefing -- this briefing on the Soviet Union -- in the following manner:
A senior White House official said Reagan has approved an eight-page National Security
document that undertakes a campaign aimed at internal reform in the Soviet Union and the
shrinkage of the Soviet empire. He affirmed that it could be called a full-court press
against the Soviet Union.[vi]
A little later, just a few days later, in fact, further evidence, this time quoting official
documentation, not hearsay from a briefer at the National Security Council, but quoting
official documentation: Richard Halloran, the defense correspondent of The New York
Times published an article in that paper on May the 30th of 1982, just a few days really
after Helen Thomas sent out her UPI dispatch. Halloran quoted from the fiscal years 1984-1988
Defense Guidance, of which The Times stated that it had a copy.[vii] The Secretary's
Guidance Document recommended what Halloran called "a major escalation in the nuclear arms
race." Apart from that it indicated that a number of other measures were being taken "to impose
costs on the Soviet Union." Note the language is the language of the RAND planners. Some of the
same people probably wrote the document. I quote from Halloran's direct quote from the National
Guidance document of the Secretary of Defense:
"As a peacetime complement to military strategy, the Guidance Document asserts that the
United States and its allies should, in effect, declare economic and technical war on the
Soviet Union."
This is interesting. "And so I think," it went on. They wrote,
"to put as much pressure as possible on the Soviet economy already burdened with military
expenditure, they should develop weapons that are difficult for the Soviets to counter,
impose disproportionate costs, open up new areas of major military competition, and
obsolesce," (Nice English. I've put sic in my article) "precious Soviet
investments."
So I think it's safe to say, and a number of people prove it to us a little later on, that
this policy was instituted. Let me just race ahead to one of the more recent proofs. David
Ignatius , who is a correspondent at The Washington Post, published a very remarkable
article about "spyless coups" not long ago, in October, if I'm not mistaken. Perhaps it was
September. Ignatius is a correspondent with very close ties to the intelligence community, to
be very polite about it. I quote from his article: "Preparing the ground " This is immediately
after the Yeltsin double event of August 1991 in which Mr. Gorbachev was seemingly threatened
by a coup and in which Mr. Yeltsin did not seem to take power but did. He described the event
in this way:
Preparing the ground for last month's triumph was a network of overt operatives who,
during the last ten years, have quietly been changing the rules of international politics.
They have been doing in public what the CIA used to do in private, providing money and moral
support for pro-democracy groups, training resistance fighters, working to subvert communist
rule.[viii]
Could he have written that in The Washington Post in 1982? It's difficult, I would
have thought. It might not have passed muster. Some people might have noticed, but in 1991,
evidently, it was all right to say that this is what we were doing.[ix]
If you look very carefully you can find many traces by officials stating that the United
States had embarked upon a strategy which, retrospectively, it is very clear, was nothing more
and nothing less than a strategy to destabilize the Soviet Union. Mr. Casey's magnificent and
expansive imagination had carried covert operations beyond the narrow confines of Third World
countries and aimed them at the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. If you go back and look at the
history of these events in this perspective, reading some of the documents, you'll see things
very differently
Judd Clark [name indistinct, spelling uncertain], for instance, speaking at a private
seminar at Georgetown University, again around 1982, said,
"We must force our principle adversary, the Soviet Union, to bear the brunt of its
economic shortcomings."
Well, that's slightly veiled language that means the same sort of thing that everybody else
was saying. It wasn't, though, until 1985, that the redoubtable and incomparable Jeane
Kirkpatrick appeared on the stage with the full text of the play in hand, and she gave a
speech, not surprisingly in front of the Heritage Foundation, at a conference room on Capitol
Hill in which she said, "The Reagan doctrine, as I understand it, is about our relations with
the Soviet Union," and she then described every principal element of the strategy which Helen
Thomas in 1982 called, repeating the NSC briefer's statement, "a full-court press against the
Soviet Union."
If you read her speech to the Heritage Foundation, which everybody should read because it
was 1985, she was saying that the United States is bent upon a strategy aimed at overthrowing
the Soviet Union through internal and external pressures. She principally described the
external pressure.
I want to say a little bit about the debate over the internal pressure. Again, in 1982,
there was a nasty little debate between some members of Congress and the then-Secretary of
State General Alexander Haig . Mr. Haig was very anxious that the United States should embark
upon the program which Ronald Reagan was going to describe before the British Parliament in
June 1982, at just about the time most of us were going to be in the streets of New York to
protest some of the things that he was doing. And Hague said in the debate over the creation of
the National Endowment for Democracy, which the Congress had insisted should not spill over
into efforts to meddle in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union, Mr. Haig said,
"Just as the Soviet Union gives active support to Marxist-Leninist forces in the West and
the [Global] South " [ironic commentary:] (because it owns Newsweek , for instance and
it manipulates the Columbia Broadcasting Company such enormous power the Soviet Union has in
the West) " we must give vigorous support to democratic forces wherever they are located,
including countries which are now communist. We should not hesitate to promote our own
values, knowing that the freedom and dignity of man are the ideals that motivate the quest
for social justice. A free press, free trade unions, free political parties, freedom to
travel, and freedom to create are the ingredients of the democratic revolution of the future,
not the status quo of a failed past."
The founder of the Central Intelligence Agency said that propaganda is the first arrow of
battle. A statement by Alexander Haig in 1982 to the Congress signals what the United States
would attempt to do with the National Endowment for Democracy, that it would try to create and
participate in the creation of [a false narrative of ] a failed past in the Soviet Union. And,
in fact, as you know, all that went ahead.
Now, let's look at that for a second. I know that it's very difficult to believe this. I ask
you to look at the second of the articles which I read, or to search for what I've written. You
can read it and search for some of the documentation easily available. You will find that the
mission statement of the National Endowment for Democracy, which functions as a kind of
consortium bringing many of the pressures of the US government to bear inside the Soviet
Union.
Destabilization requires external pressure and a manipulation of the internal situation to
move political developments in the direction you desire. That's what targeting a country for
destabilization involves. We deprive Cuba of sugar, of medicines etc. and that creates internal
pressure, and utilizing the internal pressure, you insert yourself, create groups, diffuse
ideas which are inconsistent with those prevailing and suitable to power, and you begin to work
on that discontent. If the discontent deepens and spreads, you get better and better odds, and
because the Soviet Union was already in a kind of crisis, which, as Abraham Becker said,
"the United States then systematically sought to intensify and exacerbate."
The National Endowment for Democracy and literally dozens and dozens of pseudo-private
foundations, which I'll talk about in a second, went into the Soviet Union under the new
umbrella of glasnost, created academic presses, created newspapers, created radio stations, and
began to mobilize and to work upon the natural dissent and discontent that existed in the
Soviet Union, not only because of the historical past but also because of the difficulties of
the present as exacerbated by the United States and its Western partners.
If you look at how much money I'll just give you an idea of some of the projects that were
involved, and this is just one agency. You have to recognize that if this was going on in the
National Endowment for Democracy that there were many, many other channels of finance and
influence into the Soviet Union that were working on this.
For instance, in 1984 the NED gave $50,000 to a book exhibit in the Soviet Union: America
through American Eyes. At the book fair in 1985 (I mean I'm just selecting [a few]):
$70,000 via the Free Trade Union Institute, which is part of the National Endowment, to
Soviet Labor Review for research in publications on Soviet trade union and worker
rights.
In 1986, $84,000 to Freedom House to expand the operations of two Russian language journals
published in the US and distributed in the higher levels of the Soviet bureaucracy and
intelligentsia, already an arresting description. Imagine the Soviet Union publishing two
English-language journals in the Soviet Union during the 1980s and having them distributed and
eagerly read in the highest levels of the United States bureaucracy and intelligentsia. I don't
think that would have stuck very well in the United States.
In 1987, Freedom House, for the Athenaeum Press, rushed $55,000 for a Russian-language
publication house in Paris to publish unofficial research conducted in the USSR by established
scholars writing under pseudonyms. Now what does that mean? If you get down to 1989, we're
talking already in the $200,000 category.
For instance, the Center for Democracy, which is related to the National Endowment for
Democracy, began to create a center for assistance to independent and nationalist groups,
including the Crimean Tatar movement for human and national rights. In other words, they began
to finance ethnic and nationalist separatism, began to finance separate trade unions, began to
finance their own academics etc., except this is open, but it's very large-scale, very
large-scale.
I've done a little calculation and I can tell you that very large amounts of money were
being spent, probably on the order of, by all the Western allies, minimum, inside the Soviet
Union in the period from the mid to the late 1980s, one hundred million dollars a year -- a
hundred million dollars a year to finance organizations which might begin like WESPAC but would
then grow, develop, have outreach, which would become extraordinary with that kind of funding,
and did finally change things.
If you look at perestroika in the Soviet Union, [we know it started when] Mr. Gorbachev
became the Soviet leader. This is the background to the two stages in which we must understand
perestroika. In the first stage it was clear that the Soviet leadership was desperate to find a
way to renew socialism, that Mr. Gorbachev was bent upon the reformation of the notion of
socialism, and that he had widespread support inside the Soviet Union.
There were genuine economic improvements which took place between 1986 and, sort of, let's
say, the end of 1988, in the Soviet Union, as a result of those efforts, but the principal
question we have to ask ourselves, since today we confront a fragmented, or, if you like,
disassembled Soviet Union, the supremacy of nationalism, ethnic conflict, and Mr. Yeltsin --
who represents an extremely right-wing constituency at the present moment -- and the supremacy
of capitalism. And a capitalist society is now being created in the Soviet Union, ending Mr.
Gorbachev's experiment the crucial question to ask ourselves is a very simple one: how is it
that between 1985 and 1990 a movement which began as an attempt to transform and renew
socialism in the Soviet Union was supplanted by a right-wing movement aiming at the creation of
a capitalist society in the Soviet Union? That is the key question. That is the key question
because that's what's happened, and it's strange.
That's why many of us were puzzled about the contradictory evidence coming out of the
Khrushchev [ sic ? Brezhnev?] era. It was very difficult to understand. At first, it
seemed very positive, and then from the end of 1988, the fall of 1988, it became increasingly
clear that things were going to pieces, that Mr. Gorbachev was either not able to control the
forces which he had unleashed or that indeed he was bent upon creating, as I heard on the
French radio in 1988 for the first time stated very clearly -- it arrested my attention: the
purpose, said Mr. [name indistinct], on the radio in his not-bad French, was to create a
regulated market economy. That was the purpose of perestroika, not when it began, but somehow
something had happened.
In fact there's a lot of very interesting information out there now on the whole process.
There was clearly a large dissatisfied set of strata in the Soviet intelligentsia. What has
happened in the Soviet Union is more complex than the collapse through its own internal
contradictions of the system of socialism in the Soviet Union. I really don't want to talk very
much about whether the Soviet Union was a socialist society. There are people who say it was
and people who say it wasn't. It's a long discussion between Trotsky and Stalin etc., but for
my part I would say this: that the Soviet Union began as a genuine attempt to establish
socialism. There were always in the Soviet Union people genuinely seeking to further socialism,
and people who didn't give a damn. On balance, the thing we have to ask ourselves is whether
the existence of the Soviet Union, as an apparently perceived socialist society, was a positive
thing in the world equation at this particular time of history. I, on balance, having spent
years in the United Nations, seeing that under the attacks of the Western countries, which in
many cases were very ugly, most of the Third World countries which emerged in the late 1950s
and 60s and early 70s were really only barely saved by the few sources of support which they
got in the socialist world. And when the Soviet Union went down, they went down too; [for
example] Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua.
So in many respects I would have thought that the Soviet Union, for all its defects, stood
as a positive development in history, with all of the horrors that took place. The United
States has had its horrors. The question is this: did the Soviet Union collapse because
socialism is unworkable and central planning doesn't work? No, it didn't. There was a crisis in
the Soviet Union. I would argue that in the absence of the kind of pressure [that was applied],
it's very difficult to weigh the balance. How important were the internal forces? How important
were the difficulties experienced internally, and how important was the external pressure and
the externally intervening force? How important that balance was is very difficult to get. We
have to read through all a lot of intelligence to understand that, to begin to get a grasp of
things, but that's our duty as people who are living history, or who seek to understand
history. We have to try to do that, and my basic conclusion still at this moment is this: 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. That's a judgment.
Conclusion
All right. Now, there is a question irrespective of that: what does it mean that the Soviet
Union now has disappeared as a result of the kind of process that I'm talking about, a
combination of internal difficulties and external pressure and intervention? Does it mean that
socialism doesn't work? Does it mean that [there is no alternative to] the kind of capitalism
that we live in today, which I think increasingly of as a return to irrational and savage 19th
century capitalism? If you walk through the Bronx and Brooklyn and Harlem, how can you not
conclude that we are living in an irrational and savage capitalism in which the leveling
attacks of democracy have been dealt with, in which the possibility of remedying that situation
by the constitutional means which exist in the normal political channels of our government are
very small, that electoral changes, in other words, are not going to be very significant, until
there's a mass mobilization of American people to make something happen.
If this is so, then the fact that what has happened in the Soviet Union has happened as it
happened has no bearing whatsoever on our problems, and we should not be confused or pushed
into consternation by it. Why? Primarily, for a very simple reason: The Soviet Union was
conceived at a time when, in Marxist terms, it was not ready. The Soviet Union did not have the
material base of abundance which would make it possible to create a society at once egalitarian
and democratic because the struggle to create that base would require a degree of repression
and authoritarianism, particularly heightened by external intervention and attack, which
inevitably would distort the nature of socialism.
I sympathize with Isaac [name indistinct], but I think it's too simple when he says
socialism in a backward country is backwards socialism. But the critical fact for us is this:
the Soviet Union was a society conceived as a socialist society prior to the creation of the
economic base which would permit the creation of a socialist society with ease. We live in a
society whose capacity to produce, whose potential abundance is so great that the inability to
make use of it is literally tearing this society apart.
We live in a society which is ready, and when I say that, I want to go back to the terms of
the discussion on the constitutional conventions. Well, why can't we have economic democracy?
What does economic democracy mean? Economic democracy inevitably would mean a number of these
things: the accountability of the enormous concentrated power which exists in our society today
to public democratic institutions. The planned rational use of resources at the public level,
with democratic participation in the same manner that that planned rational use is conceived
within the framework of the corporations, where the exercise of those decisions is not
accountable. So it seems to me that in our day, when our society is riven by its
contradictions, unable to use its abundance, unable to use its productive capacity in a
rational, humane and democratic manner, that what is on the agenda today is the democratization
of economic power, the rendering accountable of the enormous economic potential and power that
exists in our society to make this a better and decent and democratic world.
Voilà.
End of lecture
Question Period
Well, dear friends, first of all, we have to have this serious debate because the real terms
of the debate are rendered invisible by the absurd rhetoric and the absurd way in which we
speak about ourselves, and by the mass media whose power and determination is to keep the real
terms of the debate invisible. The real terms of the debate are: why is this society
collapsing? Why does this economic machine not work? Who is responsible? If the people who are
responsible are not going to do something about it, let them get the hell out.
Moderator : I know there have got to be lots of questions. We'll allot a certain amount of
time. We'll try to recognize everyone.
Question : You've analyzed this quite well, but what does one do to change [the
situation]?
Well, I think part of the problem I don't mean to be repetitious but I think that people are
clearly immobilized and confused at the moment. I think one of the reasons that people are
immobilized and confused is that the proper debate is not out there. It's not possible for
people to express what they know from their experience to be true, to assert its truth. The
public debate rejects our experience and understanding because the public debate is designed to
contain us, to make us accept and even to believe in the superiority of this situation. I think
people know what needs to be done out there. In a sense the quintessential problem confronting
our country is the enormous concentrated power to shape people's lives, to define discourse, as
[name indistinct] pointed out, which is accountable to no one. The democratization of that
power means, I think, certainly radical changes in the structure of our society, but ones for
which in many respects people are ready and which indeed are supported by most of the values
that this society has lived by historically and attests to.
It seems to me it's really quite simple. We don't have democracy in the sense in which we
normally understand ourselves to have democracy in which people often speak of us as having. We
don't have that. Why do we not have it? Because of this eternal and now much more intensive,
much more intense tension that has existed from the beginning between property and democracy,
between popular majorities as the Federalists called them, disdainingly, and the rights of
property. This now has become an enormous incubus on American society. We have enormous
concentrated power for which nobody is accountable, and this is not acceptable. Roger and Me [the documentary
film] is a reflection of a sensitivity that says, "We've got to talk about this, Roger. You're
responsible for this." So I really think by not knowing these things, not changing the
discourse of our lives, and the discourse in the public arena, coming to agreements amongst one
another by hard work, by hard discussion, how can we know it's true?
And by the way, I don't think this can be done in the absence of action. That is to say, in
a haltingly naive phase of my recent existence, I tried to convince some people in the Congress
that we were headed into a really horrible situation, and they didn't want to know. They
didn't. They don't want to believe what is uncomfortable for them to believe, so my decision
was that you have to go into the trenches, that you have to work on projects that are going to
materialize these ideas, that you have to work against plant closings, that you have to work
for measures that alleviate the social burdens that exist in a city like New York, that you
have to work for things while articulating these ideas because it seems to me it's only in the
combination of action and debate of ideas that people will begin to understand the relevance
and the necessity of a new discussion. You can't have in that sense -- I cede your point -- you
can't have a drawing-room discussion which will prevail.
Certainly the people in the National Endowment for Democracy believe that. They don't just
sit back and spend millions of dollars on printing books and making radio tapes and television
shows. No. They created new political institutions. They then created new political parties,
financing people like Arkady Murashev, the Inter-Regional Group in the Soviet Parliament, until
recently. It doesn't exist anymore. The Inter-Regional Group was the group of pseudo-democrats,
pro-capitalists, speaking, in many respects for the interests represented in the agglomeration
of black market operations in the Soviet Union. Arkady Murashev was systematically cosseted,
financed and trained by an organization in Washington very closely tied to certain agencies
whose names we don't want to pronounce in the present circumstances. Murashev was a liaison man
between Washington and Yeltsin. The National Endowment for Democracy gave $40,000 just for the
faxes, and the printing machines and the telephones in the Initiatives Foundation, which was
the organization that the Inter-Regional Group used to put out its messages, get itself
organized, make contacts, etc. The United States was financing that operation. Arkady Murashev
is now the chief of police of the city of Moscow.
This is heavy stuff. I mean, really, it's incredibly dramatic, but we mustn't go on in this
vein because there are questions to be answered.
Question : Does every country have to go through this period of savage capitalism to become
socialist?
No. I don't believe that. No.
Question: Bush seemed to like Gorbachev. Was Gorbachev foolish? Was he taken for a ride?
These are the great mysteries. There are, as you know, there are a different views. There
are different theories about that. One of them is that Gorbachev was a mole, that Gorbachev was
a deep-cover or Western intelligence agent. I believe that's exaggerated. I believe that's off
the wall, but I do believe that there's an element here that's important to understand.
There was in the Soviet Union, as a result of the very success of the industrialization of
the Soviet Union, an enormous alienated set of strata amongst the educated population because
the Soviet elite absorbed people at a very small rate. It didn't reach out to large numbers of
people. They were educating enormous numbers of people, professional scientific workers,
managers, and these people were mostly urban people. They were the fruit, in many respects, of
industrialization. At the same time, being urban people, they found themselves trapped in the
most difficult conditions in the Soviet Union because in its industrialization the Soviet Union
really ignored a lot of problems. Theyfound themselves, in many respects, in a similar
situation as the United States, where the decay of urban areas, the lack of equipment, the lack
of infrastructure, the lack of adequate facilities for health or education etc. became a real
problem. They didn't have the resources to industrialize, to raise the standard of living in
the really poor republics of the Soviet Union, and to deal with the urban problem, as we call
it in the United States.
So these people were imagine all educated people earning this education and looking upon
themselves as deserving of the advantages and prerogatives of their Western counterparts,
living in the equivalent of New York City, but earning the wages of a skilled worker. They
didn't like it. They felt shut out. They were angry, and it's those people that the neoliberals
were recruiting, not just the American neoliberals but their own neoliberals. There were
neoliberals in the Soviet Union. There were reactionary people in the Soviet Union this [name
indistinct] operation out in Siberia, the so-called sociological think tank. There are people
who, I don't know why Perhaps when you become very isolated from the world and separated from
reality you conjure up the most amazing dreams in your mind. I think Marx called it idealism.
In any case, these people were very much Western idealists and they came, frankly, into Moscow
and Leningrad fervent believers in the need to embrace Western institutions because of their
frustration, because of their understanding of their own past. Whether it was distorted or not,
it's not for me to say. It's because of the way they viewed and felt about their past, because
of their own personal frustration, because of the problems which were very real that they
experienced by the Soviet leadership, by the Soviet economy and society. They were alienated,
and that's where there was recruitment. When economic growth slowed down it made it much worse,
and it spread the basis of recruitment very effectively.
There is a collection of essays which I think is quite remarkable and valuable, which gives
you some background about the incredible contradictions in the Soviet Union, and how the Soviet
Union, in fact, more than a decade and even two decades ago, was in fact being prepared for
what is happening. It was ripening for some big bull shaking the tree, which is eventually what
happened. That's the collection that The Monthly Review has published recently, After
the Fall, something like that. After the Fall of the Soviet Union is really a very
valuable collection of essays on the Soviet Union, or whatever it is after communism. Very
useful stuff.
Question : Could you talk about Third World countries?
That's a really hard question. I've worked in Third World countries which were socialist
countries and which were under attack. I worked in Mozambique in the beginning of the 1980s
when the South African-Western-CIA operations were really beginning to [take a toll], and
people were dying by the tens of thousands because the roads had been cut, and the supplies had
been cut, and the health stations blown up, and I think that it was very hard for them to
survive that. Socialism proved very frail in Mozambique, even though the leaders of the
revolution had been born in armed struggle, formed by armed struggle, were dedicated to armed
struggle, but the society just couldn't withstand that kind of pressure.
In some ways I think that's true of the Soviet Union. There was a war in the shadows waged
against the Soviet Union on a massive scale, and what these events prove is the Soviet Union
was insufficiently strong to stand up to those pressures, and I think this is all the more true
in the Third World. I don't know, but I don't want to say that I know the answer, whether they
should try to make that jump or not. I think that will depend on what happens in the Western
world. I don't see any reason why the jump couldn't be made if the West, Western Europe and the
United States, in particular North America saw [supported] significant transformation of the
present system of power. Then it's not a problem, but with this massive opposition coming from
the West, it's very difficult to survive.
Question (apparently edited from video recording): __________________
These same people today, and we're talking about within a few months, within the end of the
year there being not 50,000 but between six and eight million unemployed people in Russia, 130
million people, labor force of 65 or 70 million, and I saw this same thing happening in East
Germany.
I was very briefly in Humboldt University in 1989 or 1990, I can't remember which now. The
whole situation was in upheaval, and I saw many intellectuals genuinely enraged by the
arrogance of the Honecker regime, and at the same time, unfortunately, completely unaware of
what would happen if that regime went down, taking everything, "really existing socialism,"
with it. And my question would be, OK, it's a question. You know the old version of this
question used to be what about Stalin, but it's a little different now.
My problem is this: let's look at it in human terms, OK? Just forget ideology. What has
happened as a result of the materialization of the dreams of the so-called reformers and
democrats in the Soviet Union? What has happened is what has happened in Poland, and worse:
that the standard of living of ordinary people is going to collapse, that old people will be
destitute, that children will be without health care, that the transportation system is
collapsing, that there will be no food distribution by spring, that people will starve, that
there is continuous ethnic conflict. Now, the Soviet system of prices and of raw material
supplies were such that enormous quantities that the supply system worked in a way which led to
the waste of vast quantities of raw materials and semi-finished products. I mean vast
quantities.
So the idea was to go in to work at the enterprise level to create incentives to create
better accounting, a system of prices which would reflect the real value of these raw materials
and not the fact that they could be replaced anytime you wanted because all you have to do is
put an order in. It didn't matter what you did with them. It [the reform] was focused on the
enterprise, on profit incentives, and this loosening of the tight bonds on the enterprise,
really did lead to a recrudescence of output. For instance, between 1986 and 88 there was a 17%
increase in housing production in the Soviet Union. There was a 30% increase in overall
production. The production, the economy, accelerated in the period 1986-88. In those three
years the economy accelerated, but as I said, there were two stages of perestroika. There was a
stage of perestroika where the effects were quite beneficial, where it was clear that
perestroika and glasnost were aiming to energize and develop andfree and move forward the
Soviet Union.
As a friend of mine said, the only way to ensure the social development of the Soviet Union
is to undertake these reforms, but there was another stage, a second stage beginning in late
1988 to, obviously, the end of 1991, where the forces that were unleashed utilized the reform
program to destroy socialism, clearly to destroy socialism, and Mr. Gorbachev was either
helpless before that or a willing apprentice of that process. I could not pretend to pronounce
which of those was the case. It's very difficult to say.
On the other hand, I really don't know how anybody in his right mind could have conceived of
the notion that the way forward for the Soviet Union -- and this was the quintessential
statement of perestroika by the principle Soviet leaders in the mid-1980s -- the way for the
Soviet Union was to integrate the Soviet Union into the world economy. I mean to an economist
with any degree of sophistication and critical approach, that is sheer unadulterated madness.
It's like saying that the North American free trade agreement will lead to real economic
development in Mexico. It's absurd. I mean we know what those processes are. How can a much
weaker, less industrialized Soviet Union hope to stand up against the economic forces arrayed
against it and capable of penetrating it, once it declares its intention to integrate itself
into the world economy? When I heard that, I said, "It's all over, boys. These people don't
know that they're doing," and indeed, listening to Soviet economists as I did when I was still
teaching in Paris, and meeting with some of these people, until 1989, I got the impression of
two things: they had not the least actual understanding of what was going on in the West, and
that their theoretical conceptions were taken out of a handbook by Voltaire making fun of the
French aristocracy.
Transcript produced by Youtube "auto-caption" speech recognition software, corrected and
edited by blog author, Dennis Riches.
Notes
[i] Davis Guggenheim (Director), Al Gore (Writer), "An Inconvenient Truth," Paramount
Classics , 2006.
[ii] Jason W. Moore, Capitalism in the Web of Life (Verso, 2015), 267-268. "What is
really needed is proper planning of available resources globally, plus a drive, through public
investment, to develop new technologies that could work and, of course, a shift out of fossil
fuels into renewables. Also, it is not just a problem of carbon and other gas emissions, but of
cleaning up the environment, which is already damaged. All these tasks require public control
and ownership of the energy and transport industries and public investment in the environment
for the public good."
The reference appears to be to this article. The dates 1984-1988 may appear to be an error
because the report referred to was written in 1982. However, the Defense Guidelines were
focused on plans for the future, fiscal years of 1984-1988.
[ix] As we know from the perspective of 2017, the normalization of such interventions
continued shamelessly, going from a bad habit to a deranged addiction. The political
establishment in America now resorts to economic warfare, violence and military intervention as
the solutions for every problem in international relations.
All images, except the featured, in this article are from the author.
Perestroika put the final nails in the USSR's economy One of the first main policies
Gorbachev adopted was Perestroika – reform of the economy. Hoarding and reciprocal
favours (blat) had been a means of survival in the Soviet Union, thieving to 'moonlight' was
also common and this cost the regime a lot. The 'command-administrative' system had become
obsolete in the Post-Industrial era and was curtailing economic development 1. To solve this,
Gorbachev wanted to give enterprise managers control over contracts and introduce aspects of
the market economy, to make it managers' responsibility to gain contracts and to make sure the
enterprise makes a profit. However, in practice the way the enterprises operated remained
unchanged except in terms – ministries rephrased their commands as contracts 2. Private
enterprise was also permitted, which seemed to contradict Gorbachev's claim to be committed to
Marxist-Leninist thought which was vehemently opposed to capitalism which Marxist's argue
exploit the proleteriat – so to actually create a class of capitalists who (according to
Marxist doctrine) would exploit the workers who were supposed to be living in socialist –
i.e. 'classless society' seemed contradictory to the very ideological concept the regime's
power was based upon. A small amount of private enterprise emerged, but the profiteering was
very much resented by the general population – goods and services were sold for four or
five times their subsidized price due to shortages. Another aspect of Perestroika was entry
into the market economy – many of the social benefits given by the enterprises had to be
done away with, as they could not make a profit and afford to maintain the benefits, resulting
in a stagnant economy occuring simultaneously with a collapsing social welfare system.
Gorbachev's reforms did not work and only succeeded in hastening the economic collapse that was
inevitable.
1 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
2 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992 Yes because...
Glasnost facilitated Opposition to Concentrate against the Regime Allowing freedom of
thought from the 'mono-ideological controls' that existed for decades and allowing pluralist
thought and leadership meant a weakening of power for the Communist Party – it had to
convert into a proper parliamentary party to survive. Furthermore, in a regime based on
oppression and propaganda, when these are removed and freedom of speech and freedom of the
media are introduced, nasty elements about the system in the past are going to be revealed, and
when there is 70 years of repression being reported all at once, it is inevitable there will be
extreme hostility toward those responsible – the Party 1, this especially fuelled the
anger of the nationalities who had been oppressed and triggered a nationalist movement.
The population were dissatisfied with the dire state of affairs and could voice their
discontent openly with glasnost, which led to Gorbachev becoming very unpopular by 1991, in
which year the economy had contracted by 18% 2, people were also very concerned over the
incompetence of the command-administrative system and irresponsibility of the leadership with
regards to the 1986 Chernobyl power station disaster 3.
In a state committed to one ideology, the removal of mono-ideological controls, and the
ability of other ideological persuasions to come to power meant the Party had lost its RIGHT to
govern the people unless the people themselves WANTED the Party to rule. Thus, the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) had to win the support of the people in order to govern
effectively. However, in a society that was becoming increasingly liberal and 'bourgeois' (the
USSR was largely middle class, private property was protected and capitalism was legalised),
the people had to believe in socialist ideology – which would have been almost impossible
to achieve.
Gorbachev's reforms themselves undermined some of the principle features of socialist rule
in the USSR, e.g. atheism, mono-ideological control, one-party state, economic monopoly and the
suspendability of law. Gorbachev's ideology itself – his focus on 'all-human values'
instead of the class struggle, the rule of law, international peace and proper parliamentary
representation have more resonance with John Stuart Mill than Karl Marx 4 – Gorbachev was
subconsciously moving the USSR in this ideological direction.
With democratization and pluralist thought permitted, Gorbachev found himself operating
within an increasingly wide political spectrum – with the reformist 'democrats' on one
side and the conservative Communist Party members on the other. There was a constant power
struggle between the two and Gorbachev dealt with this by constantly playing one side against
the other and compromising. One of Gorbachev's critics at the time said this was like trying to
marry a hare to a hedgehog. The two sides were very much irreconcilable and instead of trying
to defeat one side, Gorbachev sat on the fence and as a result his policies were constantly
inconsistent – you cannot mix radical reforms with conservatism 5. The dangers of this
were apparent when Shevardnadze, Foreign Minister at the time, resigned because he warned a
dictatorship was approaching, Gorbachev ignored this threat and dismissed this claim with
overconfidence 6.
1 Kagarlitsky, B. Russia under Yeltsin and Putin: neo-liberal autocracy, London: Pluto
2002
2 Service, R. History of Modern Russia: from Nicholas II to Putin, London: Penguin 1997
3 Haynes, M., Russia: Class and Power, 1917-2000, London: Bookmarks 2002
4 Service, R. History of Modern Russia: from Nicholas II to Putin, London: Penguin 1997
5 Sheehy, G. The Man who changed the World, New York: HarperCollins 1991
6 Sheehy, G. The Man who changed the World, New York: HarperCollins 1991 No because...
Regional Nationalism and Independence Movements These original flaws in the system were
largely responsible for its own downfall – in particular the nationalities issue –
the decision to maintain the Empire without granting real power to the nationalities whilst
simultaneously repressing them left most of the nationalities feeling bitter when glasnost
revealed the truth about how they had been treated in the past and democratisation gave them
the power to chose representatives who would really represent people's interests (the
nationalist movement) whilst at the same time being given by Gorbachev an appetite for power
– a fatal combination.
The wealthier regions wanted a separation from the USSR because of the feeling they were
being milked from the centre and many other regions wanted to become independent because they
did not want to be part of an economic disaster area which became apparent when the Donbass
miners who had no commitment to nationalism thought their future would be safer if the Ukraine
wasn't part of the USSR 1.
The nationalist movement emerged when freedom of speech, media and association along with
democratisation and the loss of fear of repression allowed people to voice pride in their
nation and resentment at past repressions as well as the ongoing special treatment of Russians
in the Regions, who had access to better housing and other special privileges the locals did
not.
Certain Republics felt nationalism more strongly than others, most notably the Baltic States
who felt a strong cultural attachment to the West and felt they were being unfairly occupied.
Gorbachev's mistake here was to downplay the importance of nationalism and not treat the Baltic
States as a special case 2. After all, most of the population of the USSR wished to preserve
the Union – 76% voted to preserve the Union in March 1991 (except the Baltic States,
Moldova, Georgia and Armenia who did not conduct the referendum) 3. After the failed coup, most
states declared their independence, even if they did so with reluctance, as there was a general
feeling there was no alternative. Gorbachev tried to persuade the Republics not to become fully
independent. However, in early December, the Ukraine held a referendum where the population
voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence, even after Gorbachev stated "there can be no
Union without Ukraine", on 8th December, Yeltsin met with the Ukrainian and Bielorussian leader
and declared a formal end to the USSR and the establishment of the Confederation of Independent
States which they invited the other states to join.
There was nothing left Gorbachev could do, democratisation had brought about the means for
independence and Gorbachev didn't feel he could argue with people's wishes carried out through
democratic means and, on 25th December he resigned with regret.
1 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
2 Brown, A. The Gorbachev Factor, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996
3 Brown, A. The Gorbachev Factor, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996 Yeltsin Factor
Boris Yeltsin emerged as the true hero and strong leader for the fearlessness to condemn the
coup – in a press conference afterwards Yeltsin ordered Gorbachev around undermining his
position, then used his institutional powers derived from democratization to appoint Egor
Gaidar, an economist dedicated to laissez-faire economics, as his Finance Minister and
suspension of the CPSU pending an investigation into the coup. Gorbachev half heartedly argued
against this but it was no use – he was seen as a weaker leader along with discontent
over his policies, whilst Yeltsin's radicalism was keeping pace with developments and his
popularity at an all-time high, Gorbachev's position was also much less weaker without the
Communist Party. Also, the Soviet Union really could not exist without the Communist Party
arguably as they had political and economic monopoly on society and the Communist Party went
from controlling these aspects of society to ceasing to exist, the Soviet Union could not
function and the economy spiralled out of control. Yes because...
Gorbachev Was Responsible for The Collapse Of The USSR No because... August 1991 Coup
Counter Productive, Bringing About What It Sought To Prevent - The End of the Soviet Union
By August 1991 Gorbachev's popularity was at an all-time low both in the Party and outside it.
Despite being advised by some of his staff to sign the Treaty agreement granting the republics
real autonomy before going on holiday and some suspicious circumstances he should have been
more questioning about, he planned on signing the agreement when he returned. This was a big
mistake and allowed the conservatives to stage a coup. The Emergency Committee made no
reference whatsoever to Marxism-Leninism or the class struggle in their speech, meaning it was
a coup in the hope of returning the Soviet Union to 'normal' i.e. an Empire controlled from
Moscow and putting the final nails in the coffin of socialism in the USSR 1.
The failed coup triggered the very thing it sought to prevent – the break-up of the
Soviet Union 2.
1 Hosking, Geoffrey, History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
2 Hosking, Geoffrey, History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
Yes because... Report this ad
Gorbachev Was Responsible for The Collapse Of The USSR No because... The System Needed to
Change in Order to Survive in the Longer Term; That Mikhail Gorbachev's Reforms Failed Showed
that the USSR Could Not be Saved By the Gorbachev era, all hopes of fulfilling the original
Marxist-Leninist dream were gone and most did not feel passionately about communism, even
within the Party. There was a general acknowledgement that the USSR could not continue in the
same way as before – Andropov, Gorbachev's predecessor also realised this and set about
changing society through repressive measures such as harsh labour discipline enforced by
cutting payments from workers for work deemed poor quality and restrictions on the sale of
alcohol and prohibition of alcohol on official occasions was felt overly repressive and for
many – Gorbachev was seen as a positive, energetic leader who would overcome the USSR's
problems in a less repressive manner. With economic stagnation and an economy dependent on the
exportation of natural resources to survive 1, an unsuccessful war (Afghanistan) and an ageing
Party Membership to combat, Gorbachev was the candidate for those who wanted change or at least
realised change could no longer be postponed 2.
Autocracies survive due to repressing their people to the extent that they are not given the
freedoms required to change their government, rather than because the people want them to stay
in power. Mikhail Gorbachev's conscience and sense of responsibility for his population
dictated that the system could no longer be propped up like this, and that the people needed
and deserved the freedoms and basic human rights they had been denied for decades. That the
system could not encorporate such freedoms meant that the system morally should not be allowed
to perpetuate itself, and thus the Soviet Union fell apart because it was unrepresentative and
did not support the population's human rights means the fall of the USSR should be applauded,
not mourned for its' population.
1 Volkogonov, D.A. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire: political leaders from Lenin to
Gorbachev, edited and translated by M. Shukman, London: HarperCollins 1998
2 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992 Yes because...
Gorbachev Was Responsible for The Collapse Of The USSR No because... War with Afghanistan
Drained USSR of Patriotic Morale The war in Afghanistan was a key contributing factor to
the breakup of the USSR. Reuveny and Prakash argue that the Soviet-Afghan war contributed to
undermining the Soviet Union in many ways. First, it discredited the Red Army, and impacted
negatively upon the image of the Red Army as a strong, almost invincible force, which gave
nationalist movements in the Republics hope that they might succeed in attaining independence
after all. Second, it impacted upon leadership perception on the usefulness of utilising the
military to keep the union intact and as a force for foreign intervention. Third, it created
new forms of political participation, which had begun to impact upon media reporting even
before glasnost, and began the first calls for glasnost, as it created a number of war
veterans, who went on to form organisations which weakened the total authority of the CPSU
1.
1 Reuveny, Rafael, and Prakash, Aseem, 'The Afghanistan War and the Breakdown of the Soviet
Union', Review of International Studies (1999), 25:693-708 Yes because... Report this ad
Gorbachev Was Responsible for The Collapse Of The USSR No because... It was dead from the
time Stalin took control Gorbachev finished it off, but Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev etc.
really killed it. Lenin had nothing to do with that, he was a socialist-marxist, not a
communist. You obviously don't know the difference. Learn it before you blindly yell your
opinion into the dark of the internet.
SPECIAL TO THE TIMES
MOSCOW --
Yegor K. Ligachev, once the second-most-powerful man in the Kremlin, on Wednesday called his former
boss and comrade, Mikhail S. Gorbachev, a coward and a traitor.
"I met many Communists who spent
decades in labor camps in the permafrost zone but retained their faith in the party," the erstwhile
Politburo hard-liner said. "I fail to understand its general secretary who spent three days in the
best health resort the country has by the warm sea, then called for its dissolution."
Ligachev, as straight-talking and opinionated as ever, met with journalists to present his book
"The Gorbachev Riddle," a personal chronicle of the
perestroika
years he helped to
shape before the Soviet president and party leader gave him the boot in August, 1990.
The book presentation, attended by a standing-room-only audience in the Moscow House of
Journalists, served as a forum for Ligachev, 71, to reiterate his views and credo.
Advertisement
"When life proved me wrong, I did change my perceptions," he said with quiet dignity, "but I never
changed my principles. Unlike Gorbachev, I still adhere to socialism, and I still think this is the
future for my country." The white-haired native of Siberia said his only desire is to reunite the
nation, introduce peace and stability and build a "new, refurbished Soviet Union."
A foe of both Gorbachev and Russian President Boris N. Yeltsin, Ligachev contended that his country
is in danger of becoming a "raw materials supplier and semi-colony" for the capitalist world as the
Russian leadership presses on with its economic reforms.
"The ban on the Communist Party, an organization uniting about 20 million members, cannot but
diminish the chances for a peaceful resolution of the country's current political, economic and social
crisis," Ligachev said, referring to a ban that Yeltsin ordered last Nov. 6.
Few questions during the presentation ceremony concerned Ligachev's 303-page book itself; instead,
many people sought out his view of recent political developments.
The most persistent question put to Ligachev was why none of the former leaders of the Communist Party
had volunteered to defend it at hearings on its record ordered for July by the Constitutional Court of
Russia.
Asserting that it is Gorbachev who is legally obligated to take on this task, Ligachev said
that the party "had been betrayed by its general secretary" and that it is now up to "ordinary
Communists" to defend the party's 73-year record in leading the Soviet Union.
Ligachev, who became a voting, or full, member of the ruling party Politburo in 1985, the same year
Gorbachev came to power, remains the only publicly active figure from the defunct body who voices
support for his old principles.
Others, such as former Vice President Gennady I. Yanayev, are now in prison for their roles in last
August's unsuccessful attempt at overthrowing Gorbachev when he was on vacation at a Crimean beach
resort.
"... In 1979 at one of my public speeches ("How to kill an elephant with a needle"), I was asked what in my opinion was the most vulnerable point in the Soviet system. I replied: the one that is considered the most reliable, namely, the apparatus of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, within it - the Central Committee, and within the latter - the General Secretary. ..."
"... The reader should not think that I gave that idea to Cold War strategists. They realized that without me. One of the employees of the Intelligence Service told me that soon they (i.e. forces of the West) would put their man on "the soviet throne". ..."
"... What distinguishes this Cold War operation is that the method of "killing an elephant with a needle" was applied against a less powerful, yet mighty opponent, to obviate the possibility of a "hot war" becoming dangerous to the point where the advantages of the West could disappear, as happened in the war of Germany versus the Soviet Union in 1941-1945. ..."
"... The method in question made it possible to avoid risk and losses, save time and win by proxy. The method invented by the weak to fight stronger opponents was adopted by the most powerful forces on the planet in their war for domination over the entire human race. ..."
More than anyone else, he was responsible for handing the US and UK their greatest strategic victory ever
Alexander Zinoviev
Tue,
|
1300 words
8,718
31
MORE:
History
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
RI
continues
with
a series of articles about the life and works of the brilliant postwar Russian philosopher, author, and
dissident, Alexander Zinoviev.
This time, his famous essay on how the West destroyed the USSR is introduced by his widow Olga, chairwoman
of the Zinoviev Club at Rossiya Sevodnya, a major Russian news agency.
How
different US-Russia relations were back then...
Zinoviev often said that judging from
Gorbachev's behavior, one cannot exclude the possibility that he was working for the West, but that at the end of
the day, it didn't really matter, because what he did served the West's interests exactly.
lllustrations are by Zinoviev himself, provided to
RI
by his family.
Translated from
Russian
especially
for
RI
by Sergei Malygin
Introduction
Before you, dear readers, you have one of the
seven chapters
of Zinoviev's famous essay 'How to Kill an Elephant With a Needle', written in 2005, a year
before the author's death.
The material for it derived from recollections of the numerous meetings Alexander Zinoviev had with
representatives of the West's political elite who were responsible for the formation of policy with respect to the
USSR.
1016196444.jpg
Olga Zinovieva - an active voice in
contemporary Russia
The idea underlying little episodes, including historical examples, is as elementary and limpid as spring
water: how to work out the weak spot of the enemy, adversary, scoundrel or opponent, irrespective of their
number and armaments, both literally and metaphorically.
With graphic clarity, as if it were a lesson, he provides a whole series of examples, beginning with his
own example involving a compass but then using classical examples from history, such as the episode with Francisco
Pizarro, the conquistador conqueror of Mexico, who demonstrated extraordinary quick-wittedness in his detection of
the adversary's weak spot (the Indians).
Astonished by the attack of a handful of Pizarro's warriors on their leader, whom they regarded as a god
and who in their conception was invulnerable and untouchable, the Indians capitulated without a fight. "Pizarro",
wrote Alexander Zinoviev, "had divined the enemy army's weak spot, its Achilles heel".
In this essay he writes about how the Soviet Union's weak spot turned out to be the top echelons of the
leadership.
Zinoviev was often called a dissident, but he never thought of himself as such. He was a critic of the
Soviet system, but he was not its enemy.
In his later years he often repeated that, if he had known what a dreadful fate awaited the USSR, he would
not have written a single critical book or article about it.
Olga Zinovieva
How to kill an elephant with a needle
I was exiled to the West in 1978, when the thirty-year course of the Cold War hit a radical turning point.
Cold War leaders have studied Soviet society since the beginning. The new science of Sovietology has been
developed employing thousands of experts and involving hundreds of research centers.
Within it, a separate branch of Kremlinology has appeared. It pedantically studied the structure of the
Soviet State, the party apparatus, the central party apparatus, the Central Committee of the Communist Party of
the Soviet Union, the Politburo and employees of the government apparatus individually.
But for a long time (perhaps until the end of the 1970s) the main focus was on the ideological and
psychological manipulation of the general population, the creation of pro-Western masses of Soviet citizens who
in actuality would play the role of the West's "fifth column" and (intentionally or unintentionally) working on
the ideological and moral disintegration of the Soviet population (not to mention other functions). Thus the
dissident movement was created.
In short, the main work was carried out through the destruction of Soviet society "from below". Important
achievements had been made that became factors in the future counterrevolution. But they were not significant
enough to bring the Soviet society to its collapse.
By the end of the 1970s, the Western Cold War leaders understood that. They realized that the government
system formed the basis of Soviet communism and the party apparatus was at its core. Having thoroughly studied
the party apparatus, the nature of relations between its members, their psychology and qualifications,
selection methods and its other characteristics, Cold War leaders concluded that Soviet society could be
destroyed only from the top, by destroying its system of government.
To destroy the latter it was necessary and sufficient to destroy the party apparatus, starting from its top
level - the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. So they shifted their main efforts in
that direction.
They found the most vulnerable place in the Soviet social structure. It was not difficult for me to guess
this shift, because I had an opportunity to observe and study that hidden part of the Cold War.
In 1979 at one of my public speeches ("How to kill an elephant with a needle"), I was asked what in my
opinion was the most vulnerable point in the Soviet system. I replied: the one that is considered the most
reliable, namely, the apparatus of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, within it - the Central Committee,
and within the latter - the General Secretary.
To Homeric laughter in the audience, I said that "if you put your man in that position he will ruin the
party apparatus, thus starting a chain reaction resulting in the breakdown of the entire government system and
administration. The consequence will be the breakdown of the entire society". I referred to the precedent of
Pizarro.
The reader should not think that I gave that idea to Cold War strategists. They realized that without me.
One of the employees of the Intelligence Service told me that soon they (i.e. forces of the West) would put
their man on "the soviet throne".
At that time I did not believe that was possible. I spoke hypothetically of the General Secretary as the
West's "needle". But Western strategists already considered that to be a realistic proposition. They developed
a plan for winning the war: take the supreme power in the Soviet Union under their control by promoting "their"
man to the position of the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union, force him to destroy the CPSU apparatus, implement an overhaul ("perestroika") that would start a chain
reaction and consequent breakdown of the entire Soviet society.
Such a plan was realistic then because the crisis at the top level of Soviet power was already evident, due
to the senescence of the Politburo of the Central Committee of the CPSU.
Soon "their" man in the role of the Western "needle" appeared (if he was not "prepared" in advance).
Admittedly, the plan worked well.
What distinguishes this Cold War operation is that the method of "killing an elephant with a needle" was
applied against a less powerful, yet mighty opponent, to obviate the possibility of a "hot war" becoming
dangerous to the point where the advantages of the West could disappear, as happened in the war of Germany
versus the Soviet Union in 1941-1945.
The method in question made it possible to avoid risk and losses, save time and win by proxy. The method
invented by the weak to fight stronger opponents was adopted by the most powerful forces on the planet in their
war for domination over the entire human race.
You put it pretty well. I also think that Gorby wasn't a conscious traitor, but he
was not capable to handle the necessary tasks for the reform of the USSR. He botched
it badly.
Yeltsin, on the other hand, was exactly that: a traitor. And he proved
it time and again.
Did not notice that about Pizarro, Kortez conquered Mexico.
Gorby was not fit and did not have what it takes to be Central Secretary and
he had no idea about how power is used. In times of restructuring and reforms
power cannot be diffused and undermined which is what he did, but must be
concentrated. Making quite a few heads roll would cause the rest to fall in
line including Yeltsin, who was a typical opportunist who smelt weakness and
rot at the top and used it.
Note that after Lenin death and until, Stalin by brutal measures concentrated
power in his hands, there was a lot of talk but little deeds. Just like in US
Congress. Same happened under Gorby, everybody started talking, then everybody
started smearing face with feces and glorifying the West until they undermined
any chance for positive change. What should have been done is to make heads
indeed roll at the top especially in Central Asia and Caucasus republics where
corruption was running amok and local intelligencia born by USSR own efforts
started thinking too much of themselves. Then when everybody would see there
is the Boss in Kremlin, things could have been started to move .
In China Deng had to deal with Hua Guo Feng and others before he started
reforms after concentrating power in own hands.
Gorby, well, was not cut for the role. Every few months new ideas, busy body
and not very straight talker. He was too soft and lacked abilities to be
leader of such a country and had none in his surrounding to shore his
deficiencies up.
He did , but me think not enough. also, it is not exactly the way
it used to be. I think Putin knew what he was doing. Unlike Gorby
who had all of the power in his hands and could do things we are
talking about, Putin had to maneuver. His position was not
unassailable when he came to power and much later. He had to be
more of a fox. He is also not a cruel man, like Stalin was.
It wouldn't be impossible, even today there are some questionable characters in very
high Kremlin positions, and if any of them manage come to power they will undermine
Russia's interests as has happened in the not so distant past.
I agree that in the
case of Gorby he was more of a fool than a Western agent. The Westerners knew how to
charm, flatter and entertain him and he was only too willing to please them and lap
up their manipulation and false promises.
It would be impossible. They do not and did not understand how things work in
Russia and they almost always are wrong. Gorby stupidity was all the required,
Yeltsin was a dark horse and Coup leaders should have studied more of Lenin
how to make coups.
With Gorby no cunning was necessary. The guy was plain sucker and not fit for
the office. Looks like he got picked for 2 qualities. Youth and good health
and having no enemies.
In those years we had new General secretary every
year.
I am so sad that the great Soviet Union for which so many many millions
of brave and honest people gave everything they had and their life in
the end got ripped apart due to this corrupted idiot. Furthermore I am
surprised beyond any belief that no one from KGB or Soviet Army arranged
for this fool to get smoked when they saw what was about to commence.
Today it is still the biggest mystery to me. I am aware that USSR had
some problems but those were truly nothing compared to what Russia and
all the other post Soviet countries faced after USSR got destroyed by
that cock sucker. 300 000 000 people more or less got their future
crippled and robbed because of 1 ( one ) western puppy. I just still
today cannot believe that happened. Looks like of course he had some KGB
staff on his payroll but in the end I just cannot believe that no one
took him to Siberia and burried him over there on time.
What is even
more sad is that today this idiot is prancing freely across Russia even
after almost everyone today sees that because of him they got Yeltsin
and his mobsters that stole their future.
I do admire Russian people and respect them for everything they wnt
through their past but some things are just not logical for a 12 year
old child and definitely not for a nation that gave the most chess
masters and champions to the world.
I would definitely like your comment on this if you are a citizen of
ex USSR.
lets look at it a different way ... Who was Gorbachev not Working FOR !
-
Gorbachev Was not Working For the USSR, Gorbachev Was not working for the People of the
USSR ...
-
now it is easier to see who Gorbachev the Traitor was Working For / and Where Gorbachev
Loyalties Were !
Mihail Sergeyevitch is a Russian
patriot, just as good as many more millions of Russians are! But Mihail Sergeyevitch
fallen for the pretence of honesty, so skilfully played by the west, as he presupposed the
existence of GENTLEMEN being in power in the west! ...and he wasn't the only one of the
Russian politicians, ...Dimitry Anatolyevitch fallen for the same, ...when the agreed for
a no-fly zone to be established over Libya!
There are NO gentlemen in western politics! ZIPPO, ZILCH, NADA! There are O N L Y
BASTARDS, one worse then the next!
i think gorbachev can in a sense be called traitorious to the RUSSIAN nation --
whether it was under the USSR or not...
but precisely because he allowed himself
to be ''open'' in ways that the west needed for the leadership to be open -- at the
exact time when russia at the core of the USSR NEEDED someone to REFUSE to be
''open'' in exactly the way the USA wanted -- in order to get rid of the
'perception' of a 'failing, geriatric ussr" - and thus , be ''welcomed" by the
''world" which to gorbachev WAS the west...
to the nearly complete ignoring of THE MAJORITY of other nations (such as we see
PUTIN achieve differently) -
he became the instrument of what was to follow -- yeltsin and the collapse of not
just the USSR -- but RUSSIA'S governance itself
which further opened russia to the pillaging through the oligarchic collaborators
with their western masters...
i think GORBACHEV LOVES RUSSIA -- i really do -- i think he is as russia in his
soul and heart as can be...
but he was simply
WRONG in his putting FAITH and confidence, just as BORIS correctly argues,
in having GENTLEMEN AS COUNTERPARTS from the west. -- reagan the ACTOR?
excuse me -- THAT IS ALL that gorbacheV should HAVE KEPT IN MIND. to know that
the USA was and IS NOT A ''partner"
as the russians, including putin -- like to say out of POLITENESS.
he should have realized that the WEST ARE NOT -- nd never have been 'THE LEAGUE
OF EXTRAORDINARY GENTLEMEN"
but EXTRAORDINARILY DECEITFUL plunderers and pillagers.
AND it has been like that since the beginning of the USA - TODAY -- and WILL
continue to be so.
it is in its DNA
just as TRUE compassion -- faith, ethics, morality, a sense of TRUE justice and
brotherhood of all humanity
IS IN THE DNA Of the RUSSIAN SOUL.
in other words -- the MISTAKE of gorbachev -- and yeltsin -- who were RIVALS --
was to believe or WISH to believe THAT THE AMERICANS and west --
were and are EQUALS AS PEOPLE GUIDED BY ETHICS ABOVE politics, economics,
personal glory, even nationality --
tht the west -- reagan etc -- were actually MEN OF HONOR.
THAT WAS HIS -- and ANY russian leaderships; GREATEST mistake.
perhaps gorbachev did not HAVE to 'work for the CIA" -- AND THE author is
probably correct -- he didn'/t HAVE to - DIRECTLY \\\
it was enough that gorbachev suffered from ''infatuation" with the west....
and so -- whatever HIS intentions or beliefs were -- his ACTS -- in themselves
BECAME acts of treason to his great country and people.
for what he did was -- to try to present THEM -- IN HIS ''glasnost and perestroika"
some of the 'freedom of the west" -- that the russian people REALLY did NOT need
-- but could have a freedom of THEIR very own
INDEPENDENT of ''copying or emulating" the west...
because IN RUSSIA AND AMONG the russian people
was ALL THE STRENGTH of their own freedom and choice and prosperity they WOULD
EVER NEED!
Hearing on U.S. Security Strategy Post-9/11
Testimony before House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
November 6, 2007
(
http://www.hks.harvard.edu/...
Former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage:
Well, indeed. I think we probably didn't get off to the
right foot in the Cold War. But, you know, we did apply smart power.
And let me give you an example -- I was being facetious about the
Chou En-lai French Revolution comment. But one of the advisers to
Gorbachev was a fellow by the name of Yakovlev -- he's the fellow who
came up with the term perestroika.
He actually, back in the bad days of the Cold War, when we were
tightly constraining the number of Soviet citizens who might come here,
he actually studied at Columbia. And he studied under a professor who
taught him about pluralism.
And Yakovlev went back to the then-Soviet Union with an idea that pluralism could work.
And 20 years later, he was the adviser. So it took a while to realize that investment,
but we realized that investment.
I called this out as a real possibility 2 years ago! I actually think that Gorbachev was
just a naive fool and the real CIA agent was his top adviser, Yakovlev. Here is what I
wrote back then:
". . . after extensive research by the Prole Center research team, it
has come to light that Alexander Yakovlev, Gorbachev's chief advisor on glasnost
and perestroika, was very likely a CIA penetration agent � an agent of influence. He could
have been either a witting or unwitting asset of U.S. intelligence."
This information was included as part of a brief book review I did. Here is the link to
the full article:
I still cannot believe how many naive people live today in Russia. There are STILL plenty
of people who believe that gorbachev was just a "clumsy" person in charge of the "task too
big to handle".
I would like to remind you that even after 2 "sudden" deaths of Soviet
leaders ( Andropov and Chernenko ) before this traitor USSR was just in a period of
economic stagnation and certainly not a deep recession. Several independent prominent
western economists have also collaborated that.
What happened is just so obvious to me that it really cannot get any simpler.
Gorbachev was a very weak minded person who even wasnt a true believer in Soviet
principles and even less so even less capable manager and organizer. He was a bureaucrat
whos wife was terminally ill and who was just a simpleton who allowed himself to be
seduced by the western propaganda and few full stores even though he obviously knew
nothing of the background principles of how world economy functioned even then.
Apparently he was way out of his league when meeting with Reagan who was a smart brave
and a cunning man I do have to admit that.
Gorbachev did what he only knew he could do. He betrayed the 70 years or hard work of
Soviet people and building of different world because he thought that world will admire
this moron and traitor if he arranges the collapse of USSR and the "end of the Cold War".
Of course there is another side of this coin.
What the actually did was "below the table" arrangement with the US that he would be
able to send his wife to a treatment abroad if he made the USSR disappear and that he
would be obviously well compensated for this evil deed. Even today he is being funded by
the western government through his "charity funds" Green Cross and Gorbachev foundation.
This guy made the dissolution of USSR on purpose make no mistake about it. It was
organized to make it seem as it happened "accidentally" and as a part of "democratic
process" so less question would be asked. Apparently even that idiotic strategy worked
which seems rather incredible for a country that provided so many smart people and was a
leading chess nation for decades. Even Albania would be skeptical about it.
Of course there is a silver lining to this. He could not do this all by himself. He had
powerful friends in KGB and army who helped him in his deeds. Why? Because they were
greedy people who lost faith in CP. With the help of these people Gorbachev introduced
extremely vile version of capitalism to the 300 000 000 people while he and his "comrades"
extracted currency reserves from the sabotaged USSR and hid them in western banks and off
shore companies.
To corroborate my point I will point out few facts:
1. only when gorbachev came to power Chernobyl catastrophe happened
2. he is the person who sent top Soviet military commanders AND THEIR WHOLE FAMILIES to
move from East Germany to the PLAINS of Ukraine and live like dogs for months until their
poor quality appartements were finished while being given nothing in exchange from Helmut
Kohl but a "Danke schon". No sane 6 year old would do that and certainly not a reasonable
and intelligent but honest Soviet leader.
3. He was the person who forced the Energia rocket with Polyus payload to be rushed beyond
all reason and that is what caused its demised and failure to put first ever weapon system
into orbit.
4. He allowed for the Berlin wall to fall like a brick overnight and did nothing to stop
that
5. He DIRECTLY NEGLECTED results of referendum of Soviet people in 1991. who with 72% of
votes wanted to preserve USSR
6. He arranged for NATO not to move eastward ORALLY WITHOUT ANY KIND OF
AGREEMENT!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??! WHO DOES THIS!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?
BUAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA
7. He himself made the USSR formally and willingly the thing of past in the end of 1991.
No one sane can believe that USSR dissolved itself in the time when there was no war
had a stable economy and strong army. This guy did it with the help of corrupt highly
positioned KGB and military personnel and of course CIA who helped them to transfer 50 000
000 000 US dollars ( 1991. value ) out of USSR for their own benefit.
To conclude: Gorbachev is a person of poor intellect, no love for Soviet or Russian
principles or state, but also a very sane traitor of USSR and Russia as well and also a
member of masonic clan who sold it for his personal interest. Just because he was playing
dumb doesnt mean he is not the biggest criminal in Soviet history. Make no mistake about
it. Even the dumbest person in Russia cannot believe that all this factors fell in place
"like chips". The probability for that is exactly 0 ( zero ).
Oh come on, this is not news. This was pretty evident. Initially he was not cooperating
with CIA. But CIA offered him something he couldn't resists. Nobel peace price, enormous
wealth, safe passage to US etc. Health care etc.
Wasn't Gorbachev from Russia's frontier lands (sometimes called Ukraine)? Not only that,
but from a place which joined the Nazis in their atrocities? I've also heard he took big
US money to step down. Bad source on that one though.
I disagree with this. Gorbachev had the right intentions. He just didn't bank on the
treachery of the wests big biz and various vested interests. Both Gorby and Reagan were
both honorable in their intentions and they did achieve much. To me it was Yeltsin who did
the utmost damage to Russia making it look like a 3rd world anarchic country as he allowed
Oligarchs to strip the countries assets.
It's difficult for me to believe that Gorbachev was simply a naive fool. Anyone
educated in Marxist theory know about the predatory nature of
capitalism/imperialism. Anyone, particularly a Soviet politician, who'd been
observing the behavior of the US after WW2 should have known that the Yanks are
masters of treachery.
This same words could be written by Gorbachov ' if he had known what a dreadful fate
awaited the USSR, he would not have written a single critical book or article about it." ,
I think Alexander Zinoviev also worked and even work for the CIA after his dead publishing
his books.
To me, Gorbachev is no traitor. He is a Russian patriot who honestly wanted to improve
Soviet Communism and adapt it to his time. Was he na�ve? Yes, very much so. After all, he
started the stones rolling and should have known what could happen if other people got
their hands on them. He probably knew that if one takes one single stone from the
monolithic structure of communism the whole structure would collapse. So he just tried to
embellish some of the corner stones of communism without pulling them entirely out from
its structure, and called this 'perestroika' and 'glasnost'. Other people in his
government, oblivious of the danger of completely pulling corner stones from its
structure, didn't think embellishing stones in-situ was enough, and pulled them completely
from the structure, with the intend to put them back once the dust that had settled on
them over time had been thoroughly scratched off, with a wire brush. But by doing so the
corner stones changed their form and didn't fit anymore into the places they had been
taken from, communism. Thus, the Primal Sin was committed, and Soviet Communism collapsed.
And so did Roman Catholicism in Europe for similar reasons.
"... Ivan Nikitchuk, a Communist party deputy, said recent events and the Ukraine crisis in particular have led five MPs, including two from the ruling United Russia party, to ask the prosecutor general, Yury Chaika, to examine Gorbachev, 83. ..."
"... "The consequences of that destruction can be felt today in the conflicts that we have seen," said Nikitchuk. ..."
A group of Russian MPs have formally requested prosecutors to investigate former Soviet
leader Mikhail
Gorbachev for treason over the breakup of the Soviet Union, a lawmaker said on
Thursday.
Ivan Nikitchuk, a Communist party deputy, said recent events and the Ukraine crisis in particular have led five
MPs, including two from the ruling United Russia party, to ask the prosecutor general, Yury
Chaika, to examine Gorbachev, 83.
"We asked to prosecute him and those who helped him destroy the Soviet Union for treason of
national interests," said Nikitchuk, adding that Soviet citizens in 1991 were against the
country's breakup.
Seeking to create a more open and prosperous Soviet Union through glasnost and perestroika,
Gorbachev ended up unleashing forces that swept away the country he had sought to preserve and
himself from power.
"The consequences of that destruction can be felt today in the conflicts that we have seen,"
said Nikitchuk.
He added that this included not only Ukraine but other former Soviet countries over the past
two decades.
In February, a popular pro-Western uprising in Ukraine ousted pro-Moscow president Viktor
Yanukovych, who has since taken refuge in Russia .
The Kremlin responded by sending troops to Ukraine's Russian-speaking peninsula of Crimea
and annexing it as part of Russia last month.
"What is happening in Ukraine can happen in Russia, too," said Nikitchuk. "This pushed us to
write to the prosecutor general, so that professional lawyers rather than historians can
investigate the events of 1991."
He added that lawmakers were also concerned about internal enemies stirring unrest.
"The fifth column in our country has been formed and works in the open, funded by foreign
money," he said.
In a landmark speech marking Russia's takeover of Crimea, President Vladimir Putin called Russians
disagreeing with his policies, such as his decision to occupy Crimea, a fifth column.
There have been previous attempts by the Communist party to have Gorbachev prosecuted but
these have led nowhere.
Nikitchuk said he hoped that the current political climate makes for a more favourable
moment and that prosecutors would launch the investigation this time.
Unlike the previous cases, the current request is backed by lawmakers from the ruling party,
United Russia.
Gorbachev said the lawmakers' initiative was "poorly thought out and groundless from a
historical point of view".
"Such calls only show that some lawmakers want publicity," he told the Interfax news agency.
A spokeswoman at the prosecutor's office declined to comment.
The Soviet Union officially ceased to exist in December 1991 after Russia, Belarus and
Ukraine signed the Belavezha accords dissolving the USSR. Gorbachev resigned two weeks
later.
The Soviet Union did not disappear because of a great flood or a major earthquake. Somebody
was at the helm making decisions and setting a political course. Politicians should be
responsible for their actions. But do politicians alone bear responsibility?
In fact, Gorbachev's problem is inseparably linked with the unstated problem of the low
self-esteem and rationalization of the millions of people who lived through the drama of 1991.
Some justify Gorbachev's actions in an attempt to justify their own complicity in events. For
the same reasons, others try to shift blame from themselves by holding Gorbachev solely
responsible. "He ruined everything," they say. "We are not to blame."
Unfortunately, the Soviet people bear responsibility for what happened to their country.
That does not lift responsibility from any one individual, even if that person was part of the
leadership -- those whom we naturally call on the carpet first for anything that happens. We
the people are to blame for not mounting any resistance to that course of action, or at least
for not fighting it hard enough.
In truth, the only people with the moral right to criticize Gorbachev today are the ones who
had the courage in the 1980s and 1990s to point out how destructive his policies were, to go
against the flow, and to condemn the path followed not only by Gorbachev, but also by his main
political rival, former President Boris Yeltsin.
Gorbachev's rule contrasts favorably with the leaders who came both before and after him,
and he is not remembered for having committed any particularly egregious wrongdoings. According
to that thinking, Gorbachev did not "destroy" the Soviet Union, he "only" betrayed the country
he led.
Gorbachev took office with a pledge to serve and defend the state. He cannot be blamed for
the fact that a catastrophe that had been brewing for two decades erupted during his reign. But
as the captain, he was obligated to "go down with the ship" and share the same political fate
as the country he governed. The problem is not that Gorbachev could have prevented the collapse
and didn't -- he couldn't have under any circumstances -- but that when the troubles came, he
snuck away from the battlefield and went home to have dinner.
The people might sometimes excuse or even justify the deeds of malefactors, but it never
forgives a traitor.
Boris Kagarlitsky is the director of the Institute of Globalization
Studies.
But by his death in 1997, Deng's decision appeared vindicated, as world opinion had turned
decisively in his favor. Deng had seen enough of Russia's tumultuous politics to know where he
stood: sacrifice political liberalization for stability's sake, because the alternative was
chaos and collapse. Chinese analysts of Soviet politics continue to fault Gorbachev for
abandoning central planning too rapidly and in a disorganized fashion. Rather than liberalizing
politics, they argue, Gorbachev should have focused on the economy.
Today, top Chinese leaders cite the Soviet Union as an example of why China's Communist
Party must keep its fist clenched on power, even as it casts off the last remaining vestiges of
the Maoist economy. Jiang Zemin, who succeeded Deng as China's leader, argued in 1990 that
the Soviet Union's main problem was that Gorbachev was a traitor like Leon Trotsky, the Soviet
revolutionary who was found guilty of betraying Marxism-Leninism by then-leader Joseph
Stalin.
That was an ironic charge coming from the official who first formally welcomed China's
business classes into the supposedly communist ruling party. Yet in December 2012, Chinese
President Xi Jinping echoed this analysis. "Why did the Soviet Union disintegrate?" he
asked
a group of Communist Party members. "Their ideals and convictions wavered," he explained.
"Finally, all it took was one quiet word from Gorbachev to declare the dissolution of the
Soviet Communist Party, and a great party was gone." Yet it is Deng's logic that has come to
dominate most interpretations of the Soviet Union's collapse. "My father,"
reported Deng's youngest son, "thinks Gorbachev is an idiot."
In Russia, many agree. Russians regularly rate Gorbachev as one of their worst leaders of
the 20th century. A 2013 poll
found that only 22 percent of Russians perceive Gorbachev positively or slightly
positively, while 66 percent have a negative impression. By contrast, Leonid Brezhnev, who
presided over two decades of stagnation, is viewed positively by 56 percent of Russians. Even
Stalin, who managed a murderous reign of terror, gets positive marks from half of Russians. It
is not surprising, then, that Deng's reputation in Russia has risen. Many Russians see China as
a model of what their country should have done during the 1980s and 1990s. Liberal politics
cause chaos and economic distress, many Russians have concluded, and only a strong hand can
deliver economic growth.
... ... ...
... Deng managed to compromise with other elites, letting them retain their authority in
exchange for their support in pursuing economic reforms that allowed China to grow. But in the
Soviet Union, economic reform meant destroying the power base of the special interest groups,
leaving a potential military coup lurking in the background and hanging over Gorbachev's head.
That was a threat Deng never faced.
The reason why Gorbachev lost out is not because the Soviet economy was unreformable.
China's example proved that the transition from a centrally planned to a market economy was
possible. Rather, the Soviet Union collapsed because vast political power was entrusted to
groups that had every reason to sabotage the efforts to resolve the country's decades-long
financial dilemmas.
In the end, the political clout of these interest groups proved far greater than Gorbachev
anticipated. In his quest to reform his country and steer it away from calamity, Gorbachev
brought about the very process that would eventually lead to the Soviet Union's collapse.
Perestroika put the final nails in the USSR's economy One of the first main policies
Gorbachev adopted was Perestroika – reform of the economy. Hoarding and reciprocal
favours (blat) had been a means of survival in the Soviet Union, thieving to 'moonlight' was
also common and this cost the regime a lot. The 'command-administrative' system had become
obsolete in the Post-Industrial era and was curtailing economic development 1. To solve this,
Gorbachev wanted to give enterprise managers control over contracts and introduce aspects of
the market economy, to make it managers' responsibility to gain contracts and to make sure the
enterprise makes a profit. However, in practice the way the enterprises operated remained
unchanged except in terms – ministries rephrased their commands as contracts 2. Private
enterprise was also permitted, which seemed to contradict Gorbachev's claim to be committed to
Marxist-Leninist thought which was vehemently opposed to capitalism which Marxist's argue
exploit the proleteriat – so to actually create a class of capitalists who (according to
Marxist doctrine) would exploit the workers who were supposed to be living in socialist –
i.e. 'classless society' seemed contradictory to the very ideological concept the regime's
power was based upon. A small amount of private enterprise emerged, but the profiteering was
very much resented by the general population – goods and services were sold for four or
five times their subsidized price due to shortages. Another aspect of Perestroika was entry
into the market economy – many of the social benefits given by the enterprises had to be
done away with, as they could not make a profit and afford to maintain the benefits, resulting
in a stagnant economy occuring simultaneously with a collapsing social welfare system.
Gorbachev's reforms did not work and only succeeded in hastening the economic collapse that was
inevitable.
1 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
2 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992 Yes because...
Glasnost facilitated Opposition to Concentrate against the Regime Allowing freedom of
thought from the 'mono-ideological controls' that existed for decades and allowing pluralist
thought and leadership meant a weakening of power for the Communist Party – it had to
convert into a proper parliamentary party to survive. Furthermore, in a regime based on
oppression and propaganda, when these are removed and freedom of speech and freedom of the
media are introduced, nasty elements about the system in the past are going to be revealed, and
when there is 70 years of repression being reported all at once, it is inevitable there will be
extreme hostility toward those responsible – the Party 1, this especially fuelled the
anger of the nationalities who had been oppressed and triggered a nationalist movement.
The population were dissatisfied with the dire state of affairs and could voice their
discontent openly with glasnost, which led to Gorbachev becoming very unpopular by 1991, in
which year the economy had contracted by 18% 2, people were also very concerned over the
incompetence of the command-administrative system and irresponsibility of the leadership with
regards to the 1986 Chernobyl power station disaster 3.
In a state committed to one ideology, the removal of mono-ideological controls, and the
ability of other ideological persuasions to come to power meant the Party had lost its RIGHT to
govern the people unless the people themselves WANTED the Party to rule. Thus, the Communist
Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) had to win the support of the people in order to govern
effectively. However, in a society that was becoming increasingly liberal and 'bourgeois' (the
USSR was largely middle class, private property was protected and capitalism was legalised),
the people had to believe in socialist ideology – which would have been almost impossible
to achieve.
Gorbachev's reforms themselves undermined some of the principle features of socialist rule
in the USSR, e.g. atheism, mono-ideological control, one-party state, economic monopoly and the
suspendability of law. Gorbachev's ideology itself – his focus on 'all-human values'
instead of the class struggle, the rule of law, international peace and proper parliamentary
representation have more resonance with John Stuart Mill than Karl Marx 4 – Gorbachev was
subconsciously moving the USSR in this ideological direction.
With democratization and pluralist thought permitted, Gorbachev found himself operating
within an increasingly wide political spectrum – with the reformist 'democrats' on one
side and the conservative Communist Party members on the other. There was a constant power
struggle between the two and Gorbachev dealt with this by constantly playing one side against
the other and compromising. One of Gorbachev's critics at the time said this was like trying to
marry a hare to a hedgehog. The two sides were very much irreconcilable and instead of trying
to defeat one side, Gorbachev sat on the fence and as a result his policies were constantly
inconsistent – you cannot mix radical reforms with conservatism 5. The dangers of this
were apparent when Shevardnadze, Foreign Minister at the time, resigned because he warned a
dictatorship was approaching, Gorbachev ignored this threat and dismissed this claim with
overconfidence 6.
1 Kagarlitsky, B. Russia under Yeltsin and Putin: neo-liberal autocracy, London: Pluto
2002
2 Service, R. History of Modern Russia: from Nicholas II to Putin, London: Penguin 1997
3 Haynes, M., Russia: Class and Power, 1917-2000, London: Bookmarks 2002
4 Service, R. History of Modern Russia: from Nicholas II to Putin, London: Penguin 1997
5 Sheehy, G. The Man who changed the World, New York: HarperCollins 1991
6 Sheehy, G. The Man who changed the World, New York: HarperCollins 1991 No because...
Regional Nationalism and Independence Movements These original flaws in the system were
largely responsible for its own downfall – in particular the nationalities issue –
the decision to maintain the Empire without granting real power to the nationalities whilst
simultaneously repressing them left most of the nationalities feeling bitter when glasnost
revealed the truth about how they had been treated in the past and democratisation gave them
the power to chose representatives who would really represent people's interests (the
nationalist movement) whilst at the same time being given by Gorbachev an appetite for power
– a fatal combination.
The wealthier regions wanted a separation from the USSR because of the feeling they were
being milked from the centre and many other regions wanted to become independent because they
did not want to be part of an economic disaster area which became apparent when the Donbass
miners who had no commitment to nationalism thought their future would be safer if the Ukraine
wasn't part of the USSR 1.
The nationalist movement emerged when freedom of speech, media and association along with
democratisation and the loss of fear of repression allowed people to voice pride in their
nation and resentment at past repressions as well as the ongoing special treatment of Russians
in the Regions, who had access to better housing and other special privileges the locals did
not.
Certain Republics felt nationalism more strongly than others, most notably the Baltic States
who felt a strong cultural attachment to the West and felt they were being unfairly occupied.
Gorbachev's mistake here was to downplay the importance of nationalism and not treat the Baltic
States as a special case 2. After all, most of the population of the USSR wished to preserve
the Union – 76% voted to preserve the Union in March 1991 (except the Baltic States,
Moldova, Georgia and Armenia who did not conduct the referendum) 3. After the failed coup, most
states declared their independence, even if they did so with reluctance, as there was a general
feeling there was no alternative. Gorbachev tried to persuade the Republics not to become fully
independent. However, in early December, the Ukraine held a referendum where the population
voted overwhelmingly in favour of independence, even after Gorbachev stated "there can be no
Union without Ukraine", on 8th December, Yeltsin met with the Ukrainian and Bielorussian leader
and declared a formal end to the USSR and the establishment of the Confederation of Independent
States which they invited the other states to join.
There was nothing left Gorbachev could do, democratisation had brought about the means for
independence and Gorbachev didn't feel he could argue with people's wishes carried out through
democratic means and, on 25th December he resigned with regret.
1 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
2 Brown, A. The Gorbachev Factor, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996
3 Brown, A. The Gorbachev Factor, Oxford: Oxford University Press 1996 Yeltsin Factor
Boris Yeltsin emerged as the true hero and strong leader for the fearlessness to condemn the
coup – in a press conference afterwards Yeltsin ordered Gorbachev around undermining his
position, then used his institutional powers derived from democratization to appoint Egor
Gaidar, an economist dedicated to laissez-faire economics, as his Finance Minister and
suspension of the CPSU pending an investigation into the coup. Gorbachev half heartedly argued
against this but it was no use – he was seen as a weaker leader along with discontent
over his policies, whilst Yeltsin's radicalism was keeping pace with developments and his
popularity at an all-time high, Gorbachev's position was also much less weaker without the
Communist Party. Also, the Soviet Union really could not exist without the Communist Party
arguably as they had political and economic monopoly on society and the Communist Party went
from controlling these aspects of society to ceasing to exist, the Soviet Union could not
function and the economy spiralled out of control. Yes because...
Gorbachev Was Responsible for The Collapse Of The USSR No because... August 1991 Coup
Counter Productive, Bringing About What It Sought To Prevent - The End of the Soviet Union
By August 1991 Gorbachev's popularity was at an all-time low both in the Party and outside it.
Despite being advised by some of his staff to sign the Treaty agreement granting the republics
real autonomy before going on holiday and some suspicious circumstances he should have been
more questioning about, he planned on signing the agreement when he returned. This was a big
mistake and allowed the conservatives to stage a coup. The Emergency Committee made no
reference whatsoever to Marxism-Leninism or the class struggle in their speech, meaning it was
a coup in the hope of returning the Soviet Union to 'normal' i.e. an Empire controlled from
Moscow and putting the final nails in the coffin of socialism in the USSR 1.
The failed coup triggered the very thing it sought to prevent – the break-up of the
Soviet Union 2.
1 Hosking, Geoffrey, History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
2 Hosking, Geoffrey, History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992
Yes because... Report this ad
Gorbachev Was Responsible for The Collapse Of The USSR No because... The System Needed to
Change in Order to Survive in the Longer Term; That Mikhail Gorbachev's Reforms Failed Showed
that the USSR Could Not be Saved By the Gorbachev era, all hopes of fulfilling the original
Marxist-Leninist dream were gone and most did not feel passionately about communism, even
within the Party. There was a general acknowledgement that the USSR could not continue in the
same way as before – Andropov, Gorbachev's predecessor also realised this and set about
changing society through repressive measures such as harsh labour discipline enforced by
cutting payments from workers for work deemed poor quality and restrictions on the sale of
alcohol and prohibition of alcohol on official occasions was felt overly repressive and for
many – Gorbachev was seen as a positive, energetic leader who would overcome the USSR's
problems in a less repressive manner. With economic stagnation and an economy dependent on the
exportation of natural resources to survive 1, an unsuccessful war (Afghanistan) and an ageing
Party Membership to combat, Gorbachev was the candidate for those who wanted change or at least
realised change could no longer be postponed 2.
Autocracies survive due to repressing their people to the extent that they are not given the
freedoms required to change their government, rather than because the people want them to stay
in power. Mikhail Gorbachev's conscience and sense of responsibility for his population
dictated that the system could no longer be propped up like this, and that the people needed
and deserved the freedoms and basic human rights they had been denied for decades. That the
system could not encorporate such freedoms meant that the system morally should not be allowed
to perpetuate itself, and thus the Soviet Union fell apart because it was unrepresentative and
did not support the population's human rights means the fall of the USSR should be applauded,
not mourned for its' population.
1 Volkogonov, D.A. The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Empire: political leaders from Lenin to
Gorbachev, edited and translated by M. Shukman, London: HarperCollins 1998
2 Hosking, G. History of the USSR, 1917-1991, London: Fontana 1992 Yes because...
Gorbachev Was Responsible for The Collapse Of The USSR No because... War with Afghanistan
Drained USSR of Patriotic Morale The war in Afghanistan was a key contributing factor to
the breakup of the USSR. Reuveny and Prakash argue that the Soviet-Afghan war contributed to
undermining the Soviet Union in many ways. First, it discredited the Red Army, and impacted
negatively upon the image of the Red Army as a strong, almost invincible force, which gave
nationalist movements in the Republics hope that they might succeed in attaining independence
after all. Second, it impacted upon leadership perception on the usefulness of utilising the
military to keep the union intact and as a force for foreign intervention. Third, it created
new forms of political participation, which had begun to impact upon media reporting even
before glasnost, and began the first calls for glasnost, as it created a number of war
veterans, who went on to form organisations which weakened the total authority of the CPSU
1.
1 Reuveny, Rafael, and Prakash, Aseem, 'The Afghanistan War and the Breakdown of the Soviet
Union', Review of International Studies (1999), 25:693-708 Yes because... Report this ad
Gorbachev Was Responsible for The Collapse Of The USSR No because... It was dead from the
time Stalin took control Gorbachev finished it off, but Stalin, Khrushchev, Brezhnev etc.
really killed it. Lenin had nothing to do with that, he was a socialist-marxist, not a
communist. You obviously don't know the difference. Learn it before you blindly yell your
opinion into the dark of the internet.
Joe Venetos ,
history, European Union and politics, int'l relations
Answered Aug 22 2017 · Author has 485 answers and 325k answer views
Neither.
The USSR as it was was not sustainable, and the writing was all over the wall.
The reason it wasn't sustainable, however, is widely misunderstood.
The Soviet Union could have switched to a market or hybrid economy and still remained a
unified state. However, it was made up of 15 very different essentially nation-states from
Estonia to Uzbekistan, and separatist movements were tearing the Union apart.
Unlike other multi-national European empires that met their day earlier in the 20th century,
such as the British, French, Portuguese, Austro-Hungarian, or Ottoman Empires, the Russian
Empi...
The USSR as it was was not sustainable, and the writing was all over the wall.
The reason it wasn't sustainable, however, is widely misunderstood.
The Soviet Union could have switched to a market or hybrid economy and still remained a
unified state. However, it was made up of 15 very different essentially nation-states from
Estonia to Uzbekistan, and separatist movements were tearing the Union apart.
Unlike other multi-national European empires that met their day earlier in the 20th century,
such as the British, French, Portuguese, Austro-Hungarian, or Ottoman Empires, the Russian
Empire never had the chance to disband; the can was simply kicked down the road by the
Bolshevik revolution and the Soviet era. Restrictions on free speech and press, followed by a
gradual economic downturn that began in the 1970s, brewed anti-Union and separatist sentiments
among sizeable sections of society. It's important to note, however, that not everyone wanted
the disband the USSR, and not everyone in the Russian republic wanted to keep it together (the
Central Asian states were the most reluctant to secede). There was, actually, a referendum on
whether or not to keep the Union together, and a slight majority voted in favor (something
Gorbachev points out to this day), but the vote was also boycotted by quite a few people,
especially in the Baltic republics. So, we know that the citizens had mixed feelings and the
reasons for the USSR's end were far more complex than just "communism failed".
By the summer of 1991, there was nothing Gorbachev could do. The hardliners saw him as
incompetent to save the Union, but too many citizens and military personnel had defected to the
politicians of the constituent republics (rather than the Union's leadership), including Russia
itself, that were increasingly pursuing their independence since the first multiparty elections
across the Union in 1989. By December 1991, Union-level political bodies agreed to
disband. So, Gorbachev had no choice but to admit that the USSR no longer existed.
Gorbachev could have ruled with an iron fist, and he could have done so from the 1985
without ever implementing glasnost and perestroika, but that could have been a disaster.
We don't really know, actually, but in my opinion, an oligarchy -which is what the USSR
was in its later years, not an authoritarian state like it was under Stalin- still needs
some level of public consent to continue governing, like China (which is also a diverse
society, but far more homogenous than the USSR was). If you have all this economic and
separatist malaise brewing, it's not going to work out.
In the long run, Russia is much better off. They now have a state where ethnic
Russians make up 80% of the population (a good balance), from what was, I think 50% in the
USSR.
While some Russians regret that the USSR ended, others don't care or were ready to call
themselves "Russian" rather than "Soviet". It's no different to French public opinion turning
against the Algerian war in the 1960s and supporting Algerian independence, or British public
opinion starting to support the independence of India yet some people from those countries, may
look back fondly. Also, Russia went through a tough economic period in the 1990s, which
strengthened Soviet nostalgia, understandably, thinking back to a time when the state
guaranteed everyone with housing and a job. While some sentiments still exist today in
the Russian Federation that may appear pro-Soviet, it's important to point out that that
doesn't necessarily mean these folks would like to recreate the Soviet Union as it
was . Many just simply miss the heaftier influence the USSR had, versus what they perceive
to be weakness or disrespect for Russia today. The communist party today gets few votes in
Russian elections; and many Russians now were not adults prior to 1991, and thus don't quite
remember the era too well; many others may be old enough to remember the economic downturn of
the 80s, and not the economic good times of the 60s.
One final point, regarding Gorbachev being a "stooge of the West": that gives far too
much credit to America under Reagan for taking down the USSR. The "West" had nothing to do with
it. In the longer run, as we may be seeing slowly unravel since the Bush Jr administration,
America pretty much screwed itself with the massive military spending that started in the 80s
and continues upward, with supporting the mujahedeen to lure the USSR into Afghanistan in 1979
(a war that lasted until 1989), with opposing any secular regime in the Middle East
friendly to Moscow in the 70s and 80s, and so on we all know how these events started playing
out for the US much later, from 9/11 to the current Trump mess.
At the 19th Party Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, President Xi (31 October 2019)
reiterated the imperative of "Upholding the centralized and unified leadership of the CPC."
Why does Xi insist on this point as #1 item on the party's agenda of items?
Let's make a comparison. In 1956, Khrushchev denounced Stalin as a "dictator" and of
using the party as a sort of church for the worship of his own "personality cult." This was
nonsense of course and Mao said so formally in 1963, but it was music to the ears of the
capitalist powers, in the lead the US .
Kruscev then decided to liberalize the "Stalinist party"--which was more music to the
ears of the capitalist "Free West." He said, since the class struggle in in the USSR was
over, there were no class enemies, and everyone could join the party. Opportunist did;
corrupt greedy people did, until at last in 1989 it was top heavy with members of the
shadow economy--managers of factories, mines, industries of all sorts who had over 3
decades accumulated undeclared private wealth from leeching from the the public wealth. The
party had become a club of "entrepreneurs" (thieves) whose best bet for investments of
their ill-gotten accumulation of wealth was the restoration of capitalism.
There was much more damage to the party than I can synthesize in a post, but this small
bit will do. The party was infiltrated by opportunists of the worst greed. And its
integrity, authority, ability to plan the economy according to scientific Marxist Lenininst
wisdom and principles died.
Now the US and the Cia had long ago figured that if the integrity of party could be
disintegrated the USSR would collapse. And so it did.
The CPC has no intention of China collapsing and falling once again into the avid hands
of Western imperialism, which wages capitalist.imperialist class war on China. So, China
would never dream of declaring the class struggle over for China.
Its constitution states that China will remain a class society for a long time. Not only
because it depends for the creation of wealth on a loyal national, anti-imperialist
bourgeoisie but also because China is threatened by imperialism, which is also a class war
Khrushchev ignored, calling for "peaceful coexistence" with imperialism, since both USSR
and the imperialists supposedly shared the goal of peace under the nuclear cloud.
The man was a scoundrel and destroyed the power of the Communist Party, paving the way
to the restoration of capitalism.
This is the difference between the Soviet Union post-1956 and China. Mao was not
cleansed out of the party and consigned to the lower depths of Hell like Stalin. Whatever
his mistakes, he was treated as a comrade not an enemy, his contribution acknowledged, his
deficits also--unlike Stalin. Furthermore, his revolutionary contribution to the founding
and survival of the People's Republic of China was enshrined in the party's memory. His
picture is on the currency. He is loved and respected. The party was not stressed, purged,
or divided by making Mao an issue of allegiance.
Finally, by recognizing the contribution of the loyal bourgeoisie to a self-sufficient,
independent China, the CPC acknowledges that China is still a class society. No second
economy, operating in the shadow for China. The private sector exists and is regulated (and
lately bought up gradually by the state). No chance for a clutch of opportunists to
accumulate more combined wealth than the state's and so able to take over the state and
exact regime change.
This is why Xi specifically demands and requires a strong, centralized, integral, and
uncorrupt Communist party. The party is the insurance for the persistence of the path to
socialism and eventually communism for China. No party, no sovereign, imperialism-free
China
And in this determination of making the CPC the pillar of China's social and economic
progress for all the people, Xi is acting as a Leninist. The party is for the people and
the people for the party. They are one. Without a revolutionary party and a revolutionary
theory (in China "scientific and Marxist) the revolution would die. A it did in the Soviet
Union, starting with the Kruscev gambit.
This for the West is "authoritarianism," though the West is ruled by a clutch of
authoritarian economic elites who make all the decisions in their own interests. But they
call tit "democracy." At least in China, if anything, it's an "authoritarianism" for and by
the people--a bit closer to democracy, I should argue.
Andrew Bacevich
describes how the U.S. learned all the wrong lessons from the fall of the Berlin Wall and
the end of the Cold War:
You won't hear it from any of the candidates vying to succeed Trump, but we are still
haunted by our false conception of the Cold War. On the stump, politicians get away with
reciting comforting clichés about the imperative of American global leadership. Yet
the time for believing such malarkey is long gone.
An essential first step toward recoupling national security policy and reason is to see
the Cold War for what it was: not a "long, twilight struggle" ending in victory, but a vast
and costly tragedy that inflicted needless suffering, brought humankind absurdly close to
extinction, and from which U.S. policymakers have drawn all the wrong lessons.
The anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall offers an occasion not for celebration but
for somber and long overdue reflection.
One of the wrong lessons that U.S. policymakers drew from the events of 1989-1991 was that
the U.S. was chiefly responsible for ending and "winning" the Cold War, which inevitably
overestimated our government's capabilities and effectiveness in affecting the political
fortunes of other parts of the world. The far more critical and important role of the peoples
of central and eastern Europe and the Soviet Union itself in overthrowing the system that had
oppressed them was pushed into the background as much as possible. The U.S. took credit for
their success and policymakers frequently attributed the outcome to the policies of the late
Cold War rather than to the deficiencies and failings of the other system. After waging
stalemated and failed wars in the name of anticommunism, U.S. policymakers wanted to be able to
claim that they had "won" something, and so they declared victory for something that they
hadn't caused.
The period that followed the dissolution of the USSR was one of triumphalism, expansion, and
overreach. The U.S. not only congratulated itself for achieving something that was accomplished
by others, but it also assumed that it could achieve similar results in other parts of the
world. If NATO had been a great success as a defensive alliance, the "thinking" went, why
shouldn't it continue and expand to include many more countries? If the U.S. was supposedly
able to bring down the Soviet Union, why shouldn't it do the same to authoritarian regimes
elsewhere? Absent the check on ambition and hubris that a superpower rival provided, the U.S.
was free to run amok and do whatever it liked without regard for the consequences. That
triumphalism sowed the seeds for many of the more significant post-Cold War failures that we
have witnessed since then. Even today, that same overconfidence encourages U.S. policymakers to
flirt with the idea of engaging in another Cold War-style rivalry with a more formidable state
in China.
George Kennan presciently warned
against the triumphalism that he saw around him as early as 1992. At that time, he was
responding directly to the claims from Republicans that Reagan and his policies had "won" the
Cold War:
The suggestion that any American administration had the power to influence decisively the
course of a tremendous domestic-political upheaval in another great country on another side
of the globe is intrinsically silly and childish. No great country has that sort of influence
on the internal developments of any other one.
Kennan went on to say that the militarization of U.S. foreign policy during the Cold War was
a boon to Soviet hard-liners and in that way helped prolong it:
The extreme militarization of American discussion and policy, as promoted by hard-line
circles over the ensuing 25 years, consistently strengthened comparable hard-liners in the
Soviet Union.
The more America's political leaders were seen in Moscow as committed to an ultimate
military rather than political resolution of Soviet-American tensions, the greater was the
tendency in Moscow to tighten the controls by both party and police, and the greater the
braking effect on all liberalizing tendencies in the regime. Thus the general effect of cold
war extremism was to delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union
at the end of the 1980's.
Whenever hawks talk about "winning" the Cold War, they invariably mean that it was the
militarized policies they favored that carried the day, but Kennan reminded us that this was
not so. In fact, a militarized foreign policy perpetuated the struggle by providing Soviet
hard-liners with a plausible foreign threat that they could use to justify their own policies
and to clamp down on internal dissent. We have seen the same thing repeated several times in
the last thirty years on a smaller scale with other governments. The most aggressive and
confrontational policies unwittingly aid authoritarian regimes by giving them an external enemy
that they can use to deflect attention from their own failings and as a pretext for the
consolidation of power at home.
Kennan was already telling us shortly after the Cold War ended that no one had "won" it:
Nobody -- no country, no party, no person -- "won" the cold war. It was a long and costly
political rivalry, fueled on both sides by unreal and exaggerated estimates of the intentions
and strength of the other party [bold mine-DL]. It greatly overstrained the economic
resources of both countries, leaving both, by the end of the 1980's, confronted with heavy
financial, social and, in the case of the Russians, political problems that neither had
anticipated and for which neither was fully prepared.
We can all be grateful that the Cold War ended, but we shouldn't delude ourselves with talk
of victory. Not only is it inaccurate, but it encourages the worst kinds of overreach and
arrogance that has led to several serious foreign policy failures in the decades that have
followed. Kennan warned us almost thirty years ago not to go down this path of triumphalism,
and as so often happened Americans ignored Kennan's wisdom.
Kennan concluded with the same idea that Bacevich stated at the end of his op-ed:
That the conflict should now be formally ended is a fit occasion for satisfaction but also
for sober re-examination of the part we took in its origin and long continuation. It is not a
fit occasion for pretending that the end of it was a great triumph for anyone, and
particularly not one for which any American political party could properly claim principal
credit.
American policymakers are not known for sober re-examination and acknowledgment of error,
but these are exactly the things that are needed if we are to stop making the same blunders and
learning the wrong lessons from the past. Kennan and Bacevich's advice is just as timely and
important today as it was twenty-seven years ago. Perhaps this time we should pay attention and
listen to it.
"... The brother of the current Chilean president, scions of one of the richest families in Chile, became famous for introducing, as Minister of Labor and Social Security under Pinochet, a funded system of pensions where employees make compulsory contributions from their wages into one of several pension funds, and after retirement receive pensions based on investment performance of such funds. Old-age pensions thus became a part of roulette capitalism. But In the process, the pension funds, charging often exorbitant fees, and their managers became rich. ..."
"... José Piñera had tried to "sell" this model to Yeltsin's Russia and to George Bush's United States, but, despite the strong (and quite understandable) support of the financial communities in both countries, he failed. Nowadays, most Chilean pensioners receive $200-$300 per month in a country whose price level (according to International Comparison Project, a worldwide UN- and World Bank-led project to compare price levels around the world) is about 80% of that of the United States. ..."
"... the combined wealth of Chilean billionaires' (there were twelve of them) was equal to 25% of Chilean GDP. The next Latin American countries with highest wealth concentrations are Mexico and Peru where the wealth share of billionaires is about half (13 percent of GDP) of Chile's. But even better: Chile is the country where billionaires' share, in terms of GDP, is the highest in the world (if we exclude countries like Lebanon and Cyprus) where many foreign billionaires simply "park" their wealth for tax reasons. The wealth of Chile's billionaires, compared to their country's GDP, exceeds even that of Russians. [Graph] ..."
"... Such extraordinary inequality of wealth and income, combined with full marketization of many social services (water, electricity etc.), and pensions that depend on the vagaries of the stock market has long been "hidden" from foreign observers by Chile's success in raising its GDP per capita. ..."
"... if there Is no social justice and minimum of social cohesion, the effects of growth will dissolve in grief, demonstrations, and yes, in the shooting of people. ..."
Chile: The poster boy of neoliberalism who fell from grace
It is not common for an Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development county to
shoot and kill 16 people in two days of socially motivated riots. (Perhaps only Turkey, in
its unending wars against the Kurdish guerrilla, comes close to that level of violence.) This
is however what Chilean government, the poster child of neoliberalism and transition to
democracy, did last week in the beginning of protests that do not show the signs of subsiding
despite cosmetic reforms proposed by President Sebastian Piñera.
The fall from grace of Chile is symptomatic of worldwide trends that reveal the damages
causes by neoliberal policies over the past thirty years, from privatizations in Eastern
Europe and Russia to the global financial crisis to the Euro-related austerity. Chile was
held, not the least thanks to favorable press that it enjoyed, as a exemplar of success.
Harsh policies introduced after the overthrow of Salvador Allende in 1973, and the murderous
spree that ensued afterwards, have been softened by the transition to democracy but their
essential features were preserved. Chile indeed had a remarkably good record of growth, and
while in the 1960-70s it was in the middle of the Latin American league by GDP per capita, it
is now the richest Latin American country. It was of course helped too by high prices for its
main export commodity, copper, but the success in growth is incontestable. Chile was
"rewarded" by the membership in the OECD, a club of the rich nations, the first South
American country to accede to it.
Where the country failed is in its social policies which somewhat bizarrely were
considered by many to have been successful too. In the 1980s-90s, the World Bank hailed
Chilean "flexible" labor policies which consisted of breaking up the unions and imposing a
model of branch-level negotiations between employers and workers rather than allowing an
overall umbrella union organization to negotiate for all workers. It was even more bizarrely
used by the World Bank as a model of transparency and good governance, something that the
transition countries in Eastern Europe should have presumably copied from Chile. The
brother of the current Chilean president, scions of one of the richest families in Chile,
became famous for introducing, as Minister of Labor and Social Security under Pinochet, a
funded system of pensions where employees make compulsory contributions from their wages into
one of several pension funds, and after retirement receive pensions based on investment
performance of such funds. Old-age pensions thus became a part of roulette capitalism. But In
the process, the pension funds, charging often exorbitant fees, and their managers became
rich.
José Piñera had tried to "sell" this model to Yeltsin's Russia and to
George Bush's United States, but, despite the strong (and quite understandable) support of
the financial communities in both countries, he failed. Nowadays, most Chilean pensioners
receive $200-$300 per month in a country whose price level (according to International
Comparison Project, a worldwide UN- and World Bank-led project to compare price levels around
the world) is about 80% of that of the United States.
While Chile leads Latin America in GDP per capita, it also leads it terms of inequality.
In 2015, its level of income inequality was higher than in any other Latin American country
except for Colombia and Honduras. It exceeded even Brazil's proverbially high inequality. The
bottom 5% of the Chilean population have an income level that is about the same as that of
the bottom 5% in Mongolia. The top 2% enjoy the income level equivalent to that of the top 2%
in Germany. Dortmund and poor suburbs of Ulan Bataar were thus brought together.
Chilean income distribution is extremely unequal. But even more so is its wealth
distribution. There, Chile is an outlier even compared to the rest of Latin America.
According to the Forbes' 2014 data on world billionaires, the combined wealth of Chilean
billionaires' (there were twelve of them) was equal to 25% of Chilean GDP. The next Latin
American countries with highest wealth concentrations are Mexico and Peru where the wealth
share of billionaires is about half (13 percent of GDP) of Chile's. But even better: Chile is
the country where billionaires' share, in terms of GDP, is the highest in the world (if we
exclude countries like Lebanon and Cyprus) where many foreign billionaires simply "park"
their wealth for tax reasons. The wealth of Chile's billionaires, compared to their country's
GDP, exceeds even that of Russians.
[Graph]
Such extraordinary inequality of wealth and income, combined with full marketization of
many social services (water, electricity etc.), and pensions that depend on the vagaries of
the stock market has long been "hidden" from foreign observers by Chile's success in raising
its GDP per capita.
But the recent protests show that the latter is not enough. Growth is
indispensable for economic success and reduction in poverty. But it is not enough: if there
Is no social justice and minimum of social cohesion, the effects of growth will dissolve in
grief, demonstrations, and yes, in the shooting of people.
"... As for the USSR, the Soviet elite changed sides. I think Putin once said that Soviet system was "unviable" to begin with. And that's pretty precise diagnosis: as soon as the theocratic elite degenerates, it defects; and the state and the majority of the population eventually fall on their own sword. ..."
"... And the USSR clearly was a variation of a theocratic state. That explain also a very high, damaging the economy, level of centralization (the country as a single corporation) and the high level of ideology/religion-based repression (compare with Iran and Islamic state jihadists.) ..."
"... So after the WWII the ideology of Bolshevism was dead as it became clear that Soviet style theocratic state is unable to produce standard of living which Western social democracies were able to produce for their citizens. Rapid degeneration of the theocratic Bolshevik elite (aka Nomenklatura) also played an important role. ..."
"... It is important to understand that the Soviet elite changed sides completely voluntarily. Paradoxically it was high level of KGB functionaries who were instrumental in conversion to neoliberalism, starting with Andropov. It was Andropov, who created the plan of transition of the USSR to neoliberalism, the plan that Gorbachov tried to implement and miserably failed. ..."
"... So the system exploded from within because the Party elite became infected with neoliberalism (which was stupid, but reflects the level of degeneration of the Soviet elite). ..."
"... The major USA contribution other then supplying the new ideology for the Soviet elite was via CIA injecting God know how much money to bribe top officials. ..."
"... As Gorbachov was a second rate (if not the third rate) politician, he allowed the situation to run out of control. And the efforts to "rock" the system were fueled internally by emerging (as the result of Perestroika; which was a reincarnation of Lenin's idea of NEP) class of neoliberal Nouveau riche (which run the USSR "shadow economy" which emerged under Brezhnev) and by nationalist sentiments (those element were clearly supported by the USA and other Western countries money as well as via subversive efforts of national diaspora residing in the USA and Canada) and certain national minorities within the USSR. ..."
"... The brutal economic rape of the xUSSR space and generally of the whole former Soviet block by the "collective neoliberal West" naturally followed. Which had shown everybody that the vanguard of Perestroika were simply filthy compradors, who can't care less about regular citizens and their sufferings. ..."
"... BTW this huge amount of loot postponed the internal crisis of neoliberalism which happened in the USA in 2008 probably by ten years. And it (along with a couple of other factors such as telecommunication revolution) explain relative prosperity of Clinton presidency. Criminal Clinton presidency I should say. ..."
"... BTW few republics in former USSR space managed to achieve the standard of living equal to the best years of the USSR (early 80th I think) See https://web.williams.edu/Economics/brainerd/papers/ussr_july08.pdf ..."
"... Generally when the particular ideology collapses, far right nationalism fills the void. We see this now with the slow collapse of neoliberalism in the USA and Western Europe. ..."
"... Chinese learned a lot from Gorbachov's fatal mistakes and have better economic results as the result of the conversion to the neoliberalism ("from the above"), although at the end Chinese elite is not that different from Soviet elite and also is corruptible and can eventually change sides. ..."
"... But they managed to survive the "triumphal march of neoliberalism" (1980-2000) and now the danger is less as neoliberalism is clearly the good with expired "use by" date: after 2008 the neoliberal ideology was completely discredited and entered "zombie" state. ..."
This is a very complex issue. And I do not pretend that I am right, but I think Brad is way too superficial to be taken seriously.
IMHO it was neoliberalism that won the cold war. That means that the key neoliberal "scholars" like Friedman and Hayek and
other intellectual prostitutes of financial oligarchy who helped to restore their power. Certain democratic politicians like Carter
also were the major figures. Carter actually started neoliberalization of the USA, continued by Reagan,
Former Trotskyites starting from Burnham which later became known as neoconservatives also deserve to be mentioned.
It is also questionable that the USA explicitly won the cold war. Paradoxically the other victim of the global neoliberal revolution
was the USA, the lower 90% of the USA population to be exact.
So there was no winners other the financial oligarchy (the transnational class.)
As for the USSR, the Soviet elite changed sides. I think Putin once said that Soviet system was "unviable" to begin with.
And that's pretty precise diagnosis: as soon as the theocratic elite degenerates, it defects; and the state and the majority of
the population eventually fall on their own sword.
And the USSR clearly was a variation of a theocratic state. That explain also a very high, damaging the economy, level
of centralization (the country as a single corporation) and the high level of ideology/religion-based repression (compare with
Iran and Islamic state jihadists.)
The degeneration started with the death of the last charismatic leader (Stalin) and the passing of the generation which remembers
that actual warts of capitalism and could relate them to the "Soviet socialism" solutions.
So after the WWII the ideology of Bolshevism was dead as it became clear that Soviet style theocratic state is unable to
produce standard of living which Western social democracies were able to produce for their citizens. Rapid degeneration of the
theocratic Bolshevik elite (aka Nomenklatura) also played an important role.
With bolshevism as the official religion, which can't be questioned, the society was way too rigid and suppressed "entrepreneurial
initiative" (which leads to enrichment of particular individuals, but also to the benefits to the society as whole), to the extent
that was counterproductive. The level of dogmatism in this area was probably as close to the medieval position of Roman Catholic
Church as we can get; in this sense it was only national that Cardinal Karol Wojtyla became a pope John Paul II -- he was very
well prepared indeed ;-).
It is important to understand that the Soviet elite changed sides completely voluntarily. Paradoxically it was high level
of KGB functionaries who were instrumental in conversion to neoliberalism, starting with Andropov. It was Andropov, who created
the plan of transition of the USSR to neoliberalism, the plan that Gorbachov tried to implement and miserably failed.
So the system exploded from within because the Party elite became infected with neoliberalism (which was stupid, but reflects
the level of degeneration of the Soviet elite).
The major USA contribution other then supplying the new ideology for the Soviet elite was via CIA injecting God know how
much money to bribe top officials.
As Gorbachov was a second rate (if not the third rate) politician, he allowed the situation to run out of control. And
the efforts to "rock" the system were fueled internally by emerging (as the result of Perestroika; which was a reincarnation of
Lenin's idea of NEP) class of neoliberal Nouveau riche (which run the USSR "shadow economy" which emerged under Brezhnev) and
by nationalist sentiments (those element were clearly supported by the USA and other Western countries money as well as via subversive
efforts of national diaspora residing in the USA and Canada) and certain national minorities within the USSR.
Explosion of far right nationalist sentiments without "Countervailing ideology" as Bolshevism was not taken seriously anymore
was the key factor that led to the dissolution of the USSR.
Essentially national movements allied with Germany that were defeated during WWII became the winners.
The brutal economic rape of the xUSSR space and generally of the whole former Soviet block by the "collective neoliberal
West" naturally followed. Which had shown everybody that the vanguard of Perestroika were simply filthy compradors, who can't
care less about regular citizens and their sufferings.
And the backlash created conditions for Putin coming to power.
BTW this huge amount of loot postponed the internal crisis of neoliberalism which happened in the USA in 2008 probably
by ten years. And it (along with a couple of other factors such as telecommunication revolution) explain relative prosperity of
Clinton presidency. Criminal Clinton presidency I should say.
The majority of the xUSSR space countries have now dismal standard of living and slided into Latin American level of inequality
and corruption (not without help of the USA).
Several have civil wars in the period since getting independence, which further depressed the standard living. Most deindustrialize.
Generally when the particular ideology collapses, far right nationalism fills the void. We see this now with the slow collapse
of neoliberalism in the USA and Western Europe.
Chinese learned a lot from Gorbachov's fatal mistakes and have better economic results as the result of the conversion
to the neoliberalism ("from the above"), although at the end Chinese elite is not that different from Soviet elite and also is
corruptible and can eventually change sides.
But they managed to survive the "triumphal march of neoliberalism" (1980-2000) and now the danger is less as neoliberalism
is clearly the good with expired "use by" date: after 2008 the neoliberal ideology was completely discredited and entered "zombie"
state.
So in the worst case it is the USA which might follow the path of the USSR and eventually disintegrate under the pressure of
internal nationalist sentiments. Such a victor...
Even now there are some visible difference between former Confederacy states and other states on the issues such as immigration
and federal redistributive programs.
Last month, the Council of Economic Advisers, an agency of the Trump White House, released
an extraordinary report titled "The Opportunity Costs of Socialism." The report begins with the
statement: "Coincident with the 200th anniversary of Karl Marx's birth, socialism is making a
comeback in American political discourse. Detailed policy proposals from self-declared
socialists are gaining support in Congress and among much of the younger electorate."
The very fact that the US government officially acknowledges a growth of popular support for
socialism, particularly among the nation's youth, testifies to vast changes taking place in the
political consciousness of the working class and the terror this is striking within the ruling
elite. America is, after all, a country where anti-communism was for the greater part of a
century a state-sponsored secular religion. No ruling class has so ruthlessly sought to exclude
socialist politics from political discourse as the American ruling class.
The 70-page document is itself an inane right-wing screed. It seeks to discredit socialism
by identifying it with capitalist countries such as Venezuela that have expanded state
ownership of parts of the economy while protecting private ownership of the banks, and, with
the post-2008 collapse of oil and other commodity prices, increasingly attacked the living
standards of the working class.
It identifies socialism with proposals for mild social reform such as "Medicare for all,"
raised and increasingly abandoned by a section of the Democratic Party. It cites Milton
Friedman and Margaret Thatcher to promote the virtues of "economic freedom," i.e., the
unrestrained operation of the capitalist market, and to denounce all social reforms, business
regulations, tax increases or anything else that impinges on the oligarchy's
self-enrichment.
The report's arguments and themes find expression in the fascistic campaign speeches of
Donald Trump, who routinely and absurdly attacks the Democrats as socialists and accuses them
of seeking to turn America into another "socialist" Venezuela.
What has prompted this effort to blackguard socialism?
A series of recent polls in the US and Europe have shown a sharp growth of popular
disgust with capitalism and support for socialism. In May of 2017, in a survey conducted by
the Union of European Broadcasters of people aged 18 to 35, more than half said they would
participate in a "large-scale uprising." Nine out of 10 agreed with the statement, "Banks and
money rule the world."
Last November, a poll conducted by YouGov showed that 51 percent of Americans between the
ages of 21 and 29 would prefer to live in a socialist or communist country than in a capitalist
country.
In August of this year, a Gallup poll found that for the first time since the organization
began tracking the figure, fewer than half of Americans aged 18–29 had a positive view of
capitalism, while more than half had a positive view of socialism. The percentage of young
people viewing capitalism positively fell from 68 percent in 2010 to 45 percent this year, a
23-percentage point drop in just eight years.
This surge in interest in socialism is bound up with a resurgence of class struggle in
the US and internationally. In the United States, the number of major strikes so far this
year, 21, is triple the number in 2017. The ruling class was particularly terrified by the
teachers' walkouts earlier this year because the biggest strikes were organized by
rank-and-file educators in a rebellion against the unions, reflecting the weakening grip of the
pro-corporate organizations that have suppressed the class struggle for decades.
The growth of the class struggle is an objective process that is driven by the global
crisis of capitalism , which finds its most acute social and political expression in the
center of world capitalism -- the United States. It is the class struggle that provides the key
to the fight for genuine socialism.
Masses of workers and youth are being driven into struggle and politically radicalized by
decades of uninterrupted war and the staggering growth of social inequality. This process has
accelerated during the 10 years since the Wall Street crash of 2008. The Obama years saw the
greatest transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top in history, the escalation of the wars
begun under Bush and their spread to Libya, Syria and Yemen, and the intensification of mass
surveillance, attacks on immigrants and other police state measures.
This paved the way for the elevation of Trump, the personification of the criminality and
backwardness of the ruling oligarchy.
Under conditions where the typical CEO in the US now makes in a single day almost as much
as the average worker makes in an entire year, and the net worth of the 400 wealthiest
Americans has doubled over the past decade, the working class is looking for a radical
alternative to the status quo. As the Socialist Equality Party wrote in its program eight
years ago, " The Breakdown of Capitalism and the
Fight for Socialism in the United States ":
The change in objective conditions, however, will lead American workers to change their
minds. The reality of capitalism will provide workers with many reasons to fight for a
fundamental and revolutionary change in the economic organization of society.
The response of the ruling class is two-fold. First, the abandonment of bourgeois democratic
forms of rule and the turn toward dictatorship. The run-up to the midterm elections has
revealed the advanced stage of these preparations, with Trump's fascistic attacks on
immigrants, deployment of troops to the border, threats to gun down unarmed men, women and
children seeking asylum, and his pledge to overturn the 14th Amendment establishing birthright
citizenship.
That this has evoked no serious opposition from the Democrats and the media makes clear that
the entire ruling class is united around a turn to authoritarianism. Indeed, the Democrats are
spearheading the drive to censor the internet in order to silence left-wing and socialist
opposition.
The second response is to promote phony socialists such as Bernie Sanders, the Democratic
Socialists of America (DSA) and other pseudo-left organizations in order to confuse the working
class and channel its opposition back behind the Democratic Party.
In 2018, with Sanders totally integrated into the Democratic Party leadership, this role has
been largely delegated to the DSA, which functions as an arm of the Democrats. Two DSA members,
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in New York and Rashida Tlaib in Detroit, are likely to win seats in
the House of Representatives as candidates of the Democratic Party.
The closer they come to taking office, the more they seek to distance themselves from their
supposed socialist affiliation. Ocasio-Cortez, for example, joined Sanders in eulogizing the
recently deceased war-monger John McCain, refused to answer when asked if she opposed the US
wars in the Middle East, and dropped her campaign call for the abolition of Immigration and
Customs Enforcement (ICE).
The working class and youth are increasingly looking for a socialist alternative, but their
understanding of socialism and its history is limited. Here the role of the revolutionary
party, the Socialist Equality Party, is critical. It alone seeks to arm the emerging mass
movement of the working class with a genuine revolutionary, socialist and internationalist
program.
The SEP fights to mobilize and unite the working class in the US and internationally in
opposition to the entire ruling elite and all of its bribed politicians and parties. As our
program explains:
But socialism will be achieved only through the establishment of workers' power. This will
be a difficult struggle Socialism is not a gift to be given to the working class. It must be
fought for and won by the working class itself.
The task facing workers and youth looking for the way to fight against war, inequality,
poverty and repression is to join and build the Socialist Equality Party to lead the coming
mass struggles of the working class.
"... The last three decades have seen the United States engaged in continuous and ever-expanding warfare under both Democratic and Republican administrations. The drive to conquer and subjugate the lands of the Middle East and Central Asia is a consensus policy of the American ruling class. The results have included over a million dead in Iraq and hundreds of thousands more across Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and Yemen. ..."
"... Meanwhile the Pentagon released a seemingly lunatic "joint doctrine" that goes well beyond Dr. Strangelove. It states: "nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability. Specifically, the use of nuclear weapons will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and develop situations that call for commanders to win." ..."
"... There is a worried sense within ruling circles that three decades of war have only created a series of debacles, and that US imperialism is confronting what is termed, in military and foreign policy circles, as "strategic competition" from Russia and China. At the same time, ever-sharper conflicts are emerging between Washington and its erstwhile NATO partners, in particular Germany, against which the US fought in two world wars. ..."
"... Zakaria pays special tribute to the individual who popularized the concept of the "unipolar moment," the extreme right-wing columnist Charles Krauthammer, who wrote an article with that title, also in Foreign Affairs , in 1991. He promoted an unvarnished perspective of the unilateral use of US military aggression to assert the dominance of American capitalism around the globe. ..."
"... He further insisted that if US imperialism proved unable to maintain its unipolar moment it would be "not for foreign but for domestic reasons. ... stagnant productivity, declining work habits, rising demand for welfare state entitlements and new taste for ecological luxuries." He charged that while "defense spending declined, domestic entitlements nearly doubled." And, above all, he blamed "America's insatiable desire for yet higher standards of living without paying any of the cost." [3] ..."
"... For America's ruling elite, long at each other's throats, the path should be clearer now to reforming a working consensus about the US's world role. Some of the policy-making world's most divisive issues now look settled. Force is a legitimate tool of policy; it works. For the elites themselves, the message is America can lead, stop whining, think more boldly. Starting now. [5] ..."
"... We understood this editorial, by the mouthpiece of US finance capital, as an accurate reflection of the pathological triumphalism prevailing within the American bourgeoisie. ..."
"... A third of the population is functionally illiterate. Not even the mass media can avoid reporting on a daily basis some of the more spectacular 'horror stories' of lives destroyed by the impact of the social crisis: homeless people freezing in cardboard boxes, cancer victims being denied treatment because they have no medical insurance and unemployed workers and their families committing suicide ..."
"... This position dovetailed neatly with that of German imperialism, which was backing Croatian and Slovenian independence as part of a post-reunification reassertion of its power in Europe. German imperialism was returning to the scenes of its crimes in 1914 and 1941, unilaterally defying the United States, the United Nations and the European Commission. ..."
"... This was patently the case in Yugoslavia, where the first impulse to break up the existing federation came from Slovenia and Croatia, the wealthiest regions of the country, where local ruling elites calculated that they could fare better by breaking with the poorer republics and establishing their own independent ties to European governments, banks and corporations. ..."
"... In conclusion: the so-called "Unipolar Moment" of 1990 and 1991, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the launching of the Gulf War, marked the collapse of the post-World War II equilibrium, established on the basis of the hegemony of American capitalism and the collaboration of the Moscow Stalinist bureaucracy. It signaled the beginning of a new period of uninterrupted war, the growth of inter-imperialist rivalries ..."
This lecture was delivered by Bill Van Auken, senior writer for the World Socialist Web Site , at the Socialist Equality
Party (US) Summer School on July 25, 2019.
It is now nearly three decades since the deliberate liquidation of the Soviet Union by the Moscow Stalinist bureaucracy and the
launching of the First Persian Gulf War, which began in January 1991. This war, which involved the deployment of over half a million
US troops -- more than twice the number sent into the 2003 invasion of Iraq -- clearly marked a turning point in the development
of US and world imperialism.
It likewise marked a turning point for the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). Objective developments,
in particular the disintegration of Stalinism, intersected with the protracted struggle of the ICFI against Pabloite revisionism,
culminating in the 1985 split and the consolidation of control by the orthodox Trotskyists, for the first time since the founding
of the International Committee in 1953. This signaled a fundamental change in the relationship between the Fourth International and
the working class.
Grasping that change, the ICFI sought to shoulder the immense political responsibility of leading the international working class,
which found concrete expression in the convening of the extraordinarily important "World Conference of Workers against War and Colonialism"
held in Berlin in November 1991, to which we will return.
The sharp turn by US imperialism toward unilateralism and militarism, consummated in the Gulf War of 1991, was bound up with the
protracted crisis of American capitalism and the relative decline of its domination of the global economy. With the demise of the
USSR, US imperialism concluded that it could now offset the challenge that American corporations faced from rivals in Europe and
Japan, which had been growing since the 1970s, through the relatively untrammeled use of the US armed forces.
Demolished vehicles line Highway 80, also known as the "Highway of Death", the route fleeing Iraqi forces took as they retreated
fom Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm. [Credit: U.S. Air Force]
In the case of the Persian Gulf, the US military could be used to secure unchallenged American supremacy in the world's most important
oil-producing region, which would put Washington in a position to blackmail its oil-import-dependent European and Asian imperialist
rivals with the threat of cutting off their energy supplies. As President George H.W. Bush would declare, in the run-up to the Gulf
war, an attack on Iraq would give the US "persuasiveness that will lead to more harmonious trading relationships."
This was not a development that took us by surprise. In its 1988 Perspectives Resolution, the ICFI warned:
Despite the loss of its economic hegemony, the United States remains, militarily, the most powerful imperialist country, and
reserves to itself the role of global policeman. But the conditions which prevailed in 1945 at the beginning of the so-called
American Century have been drastically transformed. The loss of the economic preponderance which once made its word "law" among
the major capitalist nations compels the United States to place ever-greater reliance on the brute force of its military strength.
[1]
The resolution went on to declare that a prophecy made by Trotsky was about to be vindicated, quoting his War and the Fourth
International from 1934. "The world is divided? It must be re-divided. For Germany it was a question of 'organizing Europe.'
The United States must organize the world. History is bringing humanity face to face with the volcanic eruption of American imperialism."
This was confirmed in barely two years.
There is an obvious continuity between these events of nearly 30 years ago and the present global political situation. The struggle
to assert US hegemony over the Persian Gulf threatens to ignite a new and even more terrible war against Iran, a country with three
times the population and four times the landmass of Iraq. The outbreak of a military confrontation is only a matter of time.
The last three decades have seen the United States engaged in continuous and ever-expanding warfare under both Democratic
and Republican administrations. The drive to conquer and subjugate the lands of the Middle East and Central Asia is a consensus policy
of the American ruling class. The results have included over a million dead in Iraq and hundreds of thousands more across Afghanistan,
Libya, Syria and Yemen.
More and more these various conflicts threaten to metastasize into a Third World War. Preparations for a nuclear confrontation
with Russia and China were chillingly described recently by the incoming chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff as the military's
No. 1 priority. Meanwhile the Pentagon released a seemingly lunatic "joint doctrine" that goes well beyond Dr. Strangelove. It
states: "nuclear weapons could create conditions for decisive results and the restoration of strategic stability. Specifically, the
use of nuclear weapons will fundamentally change the scope of a battle and develop situations that call for commanders to win."
There is a worried sense within ruling circles that three decades of war have only created a series of debacles, and that
US imperialism is confronting what is termed, in military and foreign policy circles, as "strategic competition" from Russia and
China. At the same time, ever-sharper conflicts are emerging between Washington and its erstwhile NATO partners, in particular Germany,
against which the US fought in two world wars.
The contradiction between the interdependent character of the global economy and the capitalist nation-state system is leading
inexorably to a new world war.
Under these conditions, there have been several recent commentaries by US foreign policy analysts bemoaning the end of the "unipolar
moment" proclaimed nearly 30 years ago, and looking back upon it with a certain nostalgia.
Among them is a piece published in Foreign Affairs by CNN's multi-millionaire pseudo-intellectual charlatan Fareed Zakaria,
titled "The Self-Destruction of American Power." He writes:
Ever since the end of World War I, the United States has wanted to transform the world. In the 1990s, that seemed more possible
than ever before. Countries across the planet were moving toward the American way. The Gulf War seemed to mark a new milestone
for world order, in that it was prosecuted to uphold a norm legitimized by international law. [2]
The American way, world order, norms and international law: this is how these layers fondly recall a mass slaughter.
Zakaria pays special tribute to the individual who popularized the concept of the "unipolar moment," the extreme right-wing
columnist Charles Krauthammer, who wrote an article with that title, also in Foreign Affairs , in 1991. He promoted an unvarnished
perspective of the unilateral use of US military aggression to assert the dominance of American capitalism around the globe.
Our best hope for safety in such times is in American strength and will to lead a unipolar world, unashamedly laying down the
rules of world order and being prepared to enforce them," he wrote.
He went on to present the pretext for the next major US war: "There is no alternative to confronting, deterring and, if necessary,
disarming states that brandish and use weapons of mass destruction. And there is no one to do that but the United States."
He further insisted that if US imperialism proved unable to maintain its unipolar moment it would be "not for foreign but for
domestic reasons. ... stagnant productivity, declining work habits, rising demand for welfare state entitlements and new taste for
ecological luxuries." He charged that while "defense spending declined, domestic entitlements nearly doubled." And, above all, he
blamed "America's insatiable desire for yet higher standards of living without paying any of the cost." [3]
This, after a decade of unrelenting attacks on working class living standards in the wake of the breaking of the 1981 PATCO strike.
The message was clear: imperialist war abroad had to be accompanied by an intensification of social counterrevolution and class war
in the US itself.
Bush himself, in the run-up to the Gulf War, proclaimed that the unleashing of US military power, against a relatively defenseless
oppressed country, would inaugurate a "New World Order."
The content of this "new world order" was never explained. The only thing that was clear was that the old world order had broken
down and what was to replace it, in the first instance, was an eruption of US military violence.
The catastrophic breakdown of the Stalinist regimes in Eastern Europe and in the Soviet Union -- celebrated by facile bourgeois
intellectuals as the "end of history" and the "triumph of capitalism" -- had removed a key prop of the old post-World War II order.
Moreover, the very same forces of globalization of capitalist production and technological development that had fatally undermined
the autarchic Stalinist economies were driving the entire world capitalist order into profound crisis.
... ... ...
It justified this threat on the basis of the "overwhelming dependence of Western nations on vital oil supplies from the Middle
East." Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan, introduced the "Reagan corollary," vowing that the US would defend these vital oil interests
against internal threats to stability as well.
The US government deliberately manufactured the pretext for its military intervention in the Persian Gulf. Tensions between Iraq
and Kuwait had been growing since the end of the Iran-Iraq war, in which Washington had provided significant aid to the Iraqi regime
of Saddam Hussein. Kuwait's lowering of oil prices and its demand for debt payments had further undermined an Iraqi economy that
had been battered by the war, while Baghdad claimed that Kuwait was carrying out slant drilling into Iraq's Rumaila oil field, on
the border between the two countries.
The US ambassador to Iraq, April Glaspie, used a meeting on July 25, 1990 -- just weeks before Bush was to announce his "line
in the sand" and launch the drive to war -- to assure Saddam Hussein of US friendship and sympathy, while telling him that Washington
had "no opinion on the Arab-Arab conflicts like your border disagreement with Kuwait."
The trap having been laid, Saddam Hussein, driven by desperation over the mounting economic and social crisis in Iraq, quickly
walked into it.
Like every US imperialist war waged in the name of liberation and democracy, the Gulf War was based on deception and lies.
The attempt was made to equate Saddam Hussein, whom Washington had only recently courted as an ally, with Adolf Hitler. This demonization
would become a standard feature of every succeeding US war. It had, in fact, been used in what amounted to a dress rehearsal for
the Gulf War, less than two years earlier. In preparing the invasion of Panama, the US State Department compared the involvement
in the drug trade of Manuel Noriega -- a longtime CIA asset -- with Hitler's invasion of Poland.
A massive propaganda campaign was waged to sway US public opinion toward support for the Gulf war. This infamously included the
testimony given by a 15-year-old girl to Congress, in which she tearfully recounted seeing armed Iraqi troops invading a hospital
to steal incubators, throwing babies onto the floor to die. Only later was it revealed that the story was a complete fabrication.
The girl had not been in Kuwait before, during or after the Iraqi invasion. She was the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to Washington
and a member of the royal family, sent to read a script written by a major US PR firm.
Finally, Bush justified military intervention by claiming an imminent threat posed by Iraq's massing of 120,000 troops on Saudi
Arabia's border. Satellite images subsequently revealed that there was nothing on the Kuwait-Saudi border but desert sand.
A critically important part of the report to the Special Congress of the Workers League in 1990 was the clarification of our attitude
toward Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Initial responses within the International Committee had included its condemnation as
an "act of aggression" by the British section, in an initial article published in its newspaper. On the other hand, there was a suggestion
from within the Australian section, that we support the annexation of Kuwait as a "small step" in advancing "the unfulfilled national
and democratic tasks of the Arab revolution."
The report made clear that we had no reason to condemn Iraqi aggression. Given the economic warfare waged by Kuwait and Saudi
Arabia against Iraq in the run-up to the invasion, our concern was not who fired the first shot. Moreover, to take such a position
would be to support the territorial integrity of Kuwait, a Sheikdom created by British imperialism, carved out of the southern Iraqi
province of Basra, as a means of better dominating the Arabian Peninsula. The same is the case with virtually all the borders drawn
by imperialist powers in the Middle East.
At the same time, in response to the suggestion from a member of the Australian section that we support Kuwait's annexation, it
affirmed:
To attribute any progressive role to Hussein's invasion would lead the ICFI in a false direction and undermine the theoretical
and political gains that have been made since 1985, in our collective struggle against the WRP's betrayal of the program of world
socialist revolution.
Of course, this refers to the struggle waged against the Workers Revolutionary Party's abandonment of the Theory of Permanent
Revolution, particularly in relation to its opportunist relations with various Arab regimes, systematically subordinating the independent
struggle of the working class to the supposedly anti-imperialist stance of one or another bourgeois nationalist leader.
... ... ...
The US launched the Gulf War on January 16, 1991. Operation Desert Storm, as it was dubbed, consisted mainly of one of the most
intensive air bombardments in military history. Eighty-eight thousand tons of munitions were dropped on Iraq in the course of just
42 days. This is roughly equivalent to one-fourth of the total bomb tonnage dropped on Germany during the entire Second World War.
The Iraqi casualty totals were estimated at 135,000. Much of Iraq's conscript army was wiped out, with soldiers incinerated from
the air or buried alive in their trenches. Hundreds of thousands more Iraqis, of course, died as a result of the systematic destruction
of the country's infrastructure.
On the so-called Highway of Death, the US launched wave after wave of bombings against a defenseless, miles-long column of vehicles,
carrying Iraqi troops as well as civilians withdrawing from Kuwait on the orders of the Hussein government, which announced that
it was complying with a UN Resolution demanding the withdrawal.
As we stated in response to this war crime:
The US war against Iraq is among the most terrible crimes of the twentieth century, a slaughter that future generations will
look back on with shame. It has demonstrated that the ruling class of so-called democratic America is just as capable of mass
murder as the Nazis. [4]
The Wall Street Journal responded to the Gulf War with an editorial that stated:
For America's ruling elite, long at each other's throats, the path should be clearer now to reforming a working consensus about
the US's world role. Some of the policy-making world's most divisive issues now look settled. Force is a legitimate tool of policy;
it works. For the elites themselves, the message is America can lead, stop whining, think more boldly. Starting now. [5]
We understood this editorial, by the mouthpiece of US finance capital, as an accurate reflection of the pathological triumphalism
prevailing within the American bourgeoisie.
The 11th Plenum of the International Committee was held on March 5, 1991, less than a week after the end of the Gulf War. Its
opening report stated:
The American bourgeoisie is serving notice that American imperialism will seek through force to overcome problems arising from
the protracted economic decline of the US. For all the problems of American capitalism -- the decay of its industrial base, the
loss of its overseas markets, the massive trade deficits and budget deficits, the collapse of its banking system, the gangrenous
growth of social ills -- the bourgeoisie believes it has found an answer: Force!
The report quotes the extremely relevant passage from Anti-Dühring , written 113 years earlier, in which Engels delivered
a Marxist response to Dühring's claim that force was the decisive element in history:
...its own productive forces have grown beyond its control and, as if necessitated by a law of nature, are driving the whole
of bourgeois society towards ruin, or revolution. And if the bourgeoisie now make their appeal to force in order to save the collapsing
"economic situation" from the final crash, this only shows that they are laboring under the same delusion as Herr Dühring: the
delusion that "political conditions are the decisive cause of the economic situation"; this only shows that they imagine, just
as Herr Dühring does, that by making use of "the primary," "the direct political force," they can remodel those "facts of the
second order," the economic situation and its inevitable development; and that therefore the economic consequences of the steam-engine
and the modern machinery driven by it, of world trade and the banking and credit developments of the present day, can be blown
out of existence by them with Krupp guns and Mauser rifles. [6]
Substitute computerization for the steam engine and smart bombs and cruise missiles for Krupp guns and Mausers and this statement
stands as a fitting refutation of the triumphalist rantings of the US ruling class in the wake of the Gulf War.
... ... ...
Moreover, in the context of the Gulf War, the call for revolutionary defeatism from the standpoint of fighting the US military
to the last Iraqi was senseless and reactionary. The military balance of forces was such that -- outside of the revolutionary mobilization
of the masses of the Middle East and the working class in the US and beyond -- the military victory of the US was virtually assured.
More fundamentally, it betrayed a complete disdain for and hostility to the fight against war based upon the struggle of the working
class. It was entirely bound up with the Pabloite perspective that one or another form of "armed struggle," waged by non-proletarian
forces, was the substitute for the revolutionary mobilization of the working class internationally, and particularly in the advanced
capitalist countries.
The most decisive response of the ICFI to the Gulf War, US imperialism's "unipolar moment" and the march toward the restoration
of capitalism and dissolution of the USSR, was the calling of the Berlin Conference against imperialist war and colonialism.
... ... ...
The war ushered in a period of capitalist disequilibrium that would last for three decades, dominated by capitalist crisis and
overshadowed by the successful October 1917 Revolution in Russia, calling into question the very survival of the capitalist order.
The absence, however, of revolutionary parties -- particularly in Europe -- on a par with the Bolsheviks in Russia, allowed the
bourgeoisie to defeat a series of revolutionary struggles. But they were unable to create a new equilibrium to replace what was shattered
by 1914.
The rise of the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union, led by Stalin, and the terrible degeneration of the Communist International as
it was subordinated to the Stalinist theory of "socialism in one country" and Moscow's maneuvers with imperialism, led to a series
of catastrophic defeats, above all in Germany. The coming to power of the Nazis in 1933, without a shot being fired, exposed the
counterrevolutionary character of Stalinism, leading Trotsky to found the Fourth International.
The document establishes that the ability of the bourgeoisie to achieve a new equilibrium in the aftermath of World War II, which
they could not do following World War I, was based not merely on the rise of US imperialism as a hegemonic power, but also the indispensable
role of Stalinism. It opposed and sabotaged the revolutionary struggles of the working class in the aftermath of the war, particularly
in Italy, France and Greece. In Eastern Europe, its establishment of so-called buffer states served not only to suppress the working
class and any genuine struggle for socialism, but also to pacify a fractious region that had been a source of European instability
since the dawn of the 20th century.
The equilibrium established at the end of World War II, however, as the document makes clear, was mined with its own contradictions.
Its revival of world trade and rebuilding of capitalism in Europe and Japan led to the gradual decline of US hegemony, leading to
mounting US deficits which, by 1985, had transformed America into a debtor nation.
Turning to the crisis in the United States, the manifesto sketches out a portrait that seems altogether contemporary:
Not a single significant piece of social legislation has passed through Congress in more than two decades [now we can say
five decades ]. Massive budget cuts have destroyed what remains of the old social programs. The crime statistics are merely
the most obvious symptoms of the malignant state of social relations. Amidst rapidly growing unemployment and, for those who still
have jobs, declining wages, the state of education, housing and medical care is nothing less than catastrophic.
A third of the population is functionally illiterate. Not even the mass media can avoid reporting on a daily basis some of
the more spectacular 'horror stories' of lives destroyed by the impact of the social crisis: homeless people freezing in cardboard
boxes, cancer victims being denied treatment because they have no medical insurance and unemployed workers and their families
committing suicide. [10]
... ... ...
The manifesto warned that these conflicts were being manipulated and exploited by the imperialist powers, while capitalism sought
to divert popular indignation over social inequality into the blind alley of national and ethnic conflict.
The ability of reactionary petty-bourgeois demagogues to agitate for communal violence it said, "is to be attributed not to the
intellectual and moral power of nationalism, but to the political vacuum left by the prostration of the traditional organizations
of the working class, which offer no way out of the crisis of the capitalist system."
Between the calling of the conference on May 1, 1991 and its convening on November 16, events moved very rapidly, with Croatia
and Slovenia both declaring their independence on June 25 of that year. Macedonia followed suit soon after, and the republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina
began its fragmentation into warring ethnic cantons. Armed clashes had broken out, particularly around the coastal city of Dubrovnik.
US Army combat engineer vehicle demolishes a Bosnian Serb bunker near Dubrave, January 1996
The promotion of virulent ethno-chauvinism and national separatism was led by former bureaucrats of Yugoslavia's ruling League
of Communists. They sought, on the one hand, to divide and suppress the Yugoslav working class, which had carried out a wave of mass
strikes against the austerity measures imposed by the IMF as part of capitalist restoration. On the other, they were driven to carve
out ethnic states in order to forge their own independent relations with imperialism as a new ruling class of comprador capitalists.
In his report to the conference, comrade North pointed to the attitude adopted by the Pabloite leader Ernest Mandel, who advocated
unconditional support for the self-determination of Croatia, regardless of the character of the regime. Mandel moreover issued a
call for direct imperialist intervention, denouncing Serbian chauvinism, while turning a blind eye to Croatian chauvinism.
This position dovetailed neatly with that of German imperialism, which was backing Croatian and Slovenian independence as part
of a post-reunification reassertion of its power in Europe. German imperialism was returning to the scenes of its crimes in 1914
and 1941, unilaterally defying the United States, the United Nations and the European Commission.
The Berlin conference adopted a resolution titled "On the Defense of the Working Class in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union"
which stated the following:
Everywhere rival capitalist cliques are stirring up nationalism and chauvinism, in order to incite the workers against each
other and to preempt an uprising against the old and new oppressors. The bloodbath in Yugoslavia is a result of these policies.
This war has nothing to do with the right of nations to self-determination. Serbian and Croatian nationalists are merely fighting
to secure for themselves a larger portion of the exploitation of the working class. [19]
The history of Yugoslavia, its rise and fall, could be the subject for an entire school, as could the national question and the
slogan of "self-determination." Clearly that cannot be accomplished in this lecture.
... ... ...
Not only the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the breakup of Yugoslavia, but more fundamentally, the development of capitalist
globalization, gave rise to a new type of nationalist movement, seeking the dismemberment of existing states -- including those that
emerged out of the previous national struggles against colonialism -- to further the interests of rival bourgeois factions in establishing
the most advantageous relations to imperialism and transnational capital.
This was patently the case in Yugoslavia, where the first impulse to break up the existing federation came from Slovenia and Croatia,
the wealthiest regions of the country, where local ruling elites calculated that they could fare better by breaking with the poorer
republics and establishing their own independent ties to European governments, banks and corporations.
Similar considerations have motivated a whole series of national separatist movements, including in Europe, in the cases of the
right-wing Northern League in Italy and Catalan nationalism in Spain.
... ... ...
In conclusion: the so-called "Unipolar Moment" of 1990 and 1991, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the launching of
the Gulf War, marked the collapse of the post-World War II equilibrium, established on the basis of the hegemony of American capitalism
and the collaboration of the Moscow Stalinist bureaucracy. It signaled the beginning of a new period of uninterrupted war, the growth
of inter-imperialist rivalries, and inevitably, a global rise in the class struggle and socialist revolution.
... .. ...
Footnotes:
[1] The World Capitalist Crisis and the Tasks of the Fourth International, Perspectives Resolution of the International Committee
of the Fourth International , (Detroit: Labor Publications, 1988), p. 66.
[2] Fareed Zakaria, "The Self-Destruction of American Power," Foreign Affairs , Vol. 98, No. 4, (July/August 2019)
[3] Charles Krauthammer, "The Unipolar Moment," Foreign Affairs , Vol. 70, No. 1, (1990/1991), pp. 23–33
[4] The Bulletin , March 1, 1991, "Bush is Guilty of Mass Murder"
[5] Cited in Desert Slaughter, The Imperialist War Against Iraq , (Detroit: Labor Publications, 1991), p. 232.
[6] Karl Marx Frederick Engels, Collected Works , Vol. 25, p. 153.
[7] The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International, The Transitional Program , (New York: Labor
Publications, 1981), p. 20.
[8] Workers League Internal Bulletin, Vol. 4, No. 15, p. 31.
[9] Workers League Internal Bulletin , Vol. 5, No. 1, p. 2.
[10] Oppose Imperialist War & Colonialism, Manifesto of the International Committee of the Fourth International , (Detroit:
Labor Publications, 1991), p. 12.
[11] Ibid., p. 24.
[12] The Fourth International , Vol. 19, No. 1, Fall-Winter 1992, p. 11.
[13] Ibid., p. 7.
[14] Ibid., p. 9.
[15] Ibid., p. 10
[16] Ibid., p. 14
[17] Ibid., p. 13.
[18] Oppose Imperialist War & Colonialism , p. 16.
[19] The Fourth International , Vol. 19, No. 1, p. 38.
[20] On the Manifesto of the Armenian Social Democrats , Iskra, No. 33, Feb. 1, 1903, Lenin, Collected Works , Vol.
6, pp. 326–329.
"... As early as the late 1940's, some of us living in Russia saw that the regime was becoming dangerously remote from the concerns
and hopes of the Russian people. The original ideological and emotional motivation of Russian Communism had worn itself out and become
lost in the exertions of the great war. And there was already apparent a growing generational gap in the regime. ..."
"... By the time Stalin died, in 1953, even many Communist Party members had come to see his dictatorship as grotesque, dangerous
and unnecessary, and there was a general impression that far-reaching changes were in order. ..."
"... Nikita Khrushchev took the leadership in the resulting liberalizing tendencies. He was in his crude way a firm Communist, but
he was not wholly unopen to reasonable argument. His personality offered the greatest hope for internal political liberalization and
relaxation of international tensions. ..."
"... The more America's political leaders were seen in Moscow as committed to an ultimate military rather than political resolution
of Soviet-American tensions, the greater was the tendency in Moscow to tighten the controls by both party and police, and the greater
the braking effect on all liberalizing tendencies in the regime. Thus the general effect of cold war extremism was to delay rather than
hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980's.... ..."
"... In the competition between major powers and/or alliances there are several somewhat complementary aspects of power: economic
or physical aspect to create things of "value" (added by the commerce and industry of the entity), the military power, and moral aspects
of the entity in terms of political and cultural resolve and unity. ..."
Note to Self: The Ten Americans Who Did the Most to Win the Cold War *
Harry Dexter White... George Kennan... George Marshall... Arthur Vandenberg... Paul Hoffman... Dean Acheson... Harry S Truman...
Dwight D. Eisenhower... Gerald Ford... George Shultz
The G.O.P. Won the Cold War? Ridiculous.
By George F. Kennan
The claim heard in campaign rhetoric that the United States under Republican Party leadership "won the cold war" is intrinsically
silly.
The suggestion that any Administration had the power to influence decisively the course of a tremendous domestic political
upheaval in another great country on another side of the globe is simply childish. No great country has that sort of influence
on the internal developments of any other one.
As early as the late 1940's, some of us living in Russia saw that the regime was becoming dangerously remote from the concerns
and hopes of the Russian people. The original ideological and emotional motivation of Russian Communism had worn itself out and
become lost in the exertions of the great war. And there was already apparent a growing generational gap in the regime.
These thoughts found a place in my so-called X article in Foreign Affairs in 1947, from which the policy of containment is
widely seen to have originated. This perception was even more clearly expressed in a letter from Moscow written in 1952, when
I was Ambassador there, to H. Freeman Matthews, a senior State Department official, excerpts from which also have been widely
published. There were some of us to whom it was clear, even at that early date, that the regime as we had known it would not last
for all time. We could not know when or how it would be changed; we knew only that change was inevitable and impending.
By the time Stalin died, in 1953, even many Communist Party members had come to see his dictatorship as grotesque, dangerous
and unnecessary, and there was a general impression that far-reaching changes were in order.
Nikita Khrushchev took the leadership in the resulting liberalizing tendencies. He was in his crude way a firm Communist,
but he was not wholly unopen to reasonable argument. His personality offered the greatest hope for internal political liberalization
and relaxation of international tensions.
The downing of the U-2 spy plane in 1960, more than anything else, put an end to this hope. The episode humiliated Khrushchev
and discredited his relatively moderate policies. It forced him to fall back, for the defense of his own political position, on
a more strongly belligerent anti-American tone of public utterance.
The U-2 episode was the clearest example of that primacy of military over political policy that soon was to become an outstanding
feature of American cold war policy. The extreme militarization of American discussion and policy, as promoted by hard-line circles
over the ensuing 25 years, consistently strengthened comparable hard-liners in the Soviet Union.
The more America's political leaders were seen in Moscow as committed to an ultimate military rather than political resolution
of Soviet-American tensions, the greater was the tendency in Moscow to tighten the controls by both party and police, and the
greater the braking effect on all liberalizing tendencies in the regime. Thus the general effect of cold war extremism was to
delay rather than hasten the great change that overtook the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980's....
In the competition between major powers and/or alliances there are several somewhat complementary aspects of power: economic
or physical aspect to create things of "value" (added by the commerce and industry of the entity), the military power, and moral
aspects of the entity in terms of political and cultural resolve and unity.
Early in my time in the service, when I had time to think being at a remote station I decided the west had the marked economic
advantage, particularly as the green revolution permitted some higher level of nutrition security.
Later on I recall discussions where the collapse of the Soviet Union was assured but would take in to the 21st century to occur.
The big question then was "would a nuclear exchange occur in the way of a peaceful collapse".....
The presence of the A Bomb in some ways prevented war in other encouraged intrigue and small scrapes in to each other's spheres.
There was a bit of the Divine in the world getting through the Cold War.
The Berlin wall came down as hoped but 25 years earlier than I expected.
KENNAN Was a lucky guy. He hit the right notes at the right time and then as he got second thoughts and better vision. Like yugoslaving
peoples China in 1949
He was side tracked and then sent out to ivy pastures
Nonsense. The moment to engage was 1953 -54 and yes a goo regime blocked it
But it was Truman that crossed the parallel in 1950 and tried to liberate north Korea
It was Kennedy that preferred brinksmanship to real engagement. Brush wars and regime change to accommodation. Missile racing
to sensible unilateralism
Yes LBJ was an ignorant oaf on foreign policy. But it was Nixon that finally used PRC as Yugo twenty years too late of course
The cold war was invented by democrats and exploited by republicans for domestic shindiggery. Tragicomedy cinescope scaled
Obviously since there is a determined American Cold War effort being waged right now, American historians were mistaken at the
end of the 1980s. There had been no winning of the Cold War, nor even a clear and shared understanding of what the Cold War was
about. If the Cold War was only about balancing the Soviet Union and developing economically far beyond the Soviet Union and Soviet
ideas faltering, that happened. However, there was obviously more or with no Soviet Union to counter we would not now be taking
policy steps to carry on the Cold War.
Many voice conflicting judgments, but an impartial look back on history produces the unequivocal conclusion: yes,
mistakes and shortcomings were many, but without perestroika the world would have never been what it is today
MOSCOW, April 24. /TASS/. Thirty years after the Soviet leadership under Mikhail Gorbachev embarked on a policy of
reforms that would go down in history under a name sounding very oddly to a foreign ear - perestroika - Russians are
discussing those events of their country's recent history again. Many voice conflicting judgements, but an impartial
look back on history produces the unequivocal conclusion: yes, mistakes and shortcomings were many, but without
perestroika the world would have never been what it is today.
On April 23, 1985 the Central Committee of the Soviet Communist Party gathered for its historic full-scale meeting to
set course towards what was described as fundamental reorganization and acceleration of the Soviet Union's economic
development after a long period of what was condemned as stagnation. The new course, originally expected to overhaul
and invigorate the Soviet system, ended in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
"The gist of what happened
then was simple: at the very top a decision was a made the people are free to express their thought in public and for
that they will neither risk losing their life or go to jail or even go jobless," says the founder of the Yabloko
party, Grigory Yavlinsky. "There emerged the freedom of speech. The feeling of fear vanished. Full stop. All other
processes that followed were nothing but consequences. The previous political system was built on falsehoods. The
advent of truth caused a lethal effect on that system, and it fell apart."
"Perestroika's worst problem was there was no strategic planning. The reform plan and its end goal were very
unclear all along," Sergey Filatov, the former chief of staff of Russia's first president Boris Yeltsin told TASS.
"Without a plan the policy was doomed to fail."
And still, Filatov said, perestroika caused a tremendous impact: it triggered reforms and showed the people that
changes were possible even under the old system.
"Perestroika was an intricate process," says Aleksei Makarkin, the first deputy president of the Political
Technologies Centre. "It was first a belated attempt to reform the economy, then the ensuing chaos, and ultimately an
attempt to defuse popular anger with political reform. The process eventually broke bounds. It all ended with the
collapse of the country. Gorbachev merely tried to make that process controllable more or less," Makarkin told TASS.
Gorbachev was forced to launch economic reforms, because the main engine that kept the Soviet economy going was
the export of oil. When oil prices slumped, something had to be done right away," Makarkin recalled. "His
predecessors had drawn up no strategic plans. Nobody dared touch the system. Later, when some steps began to be taken
at last, it turned out that no one had the slightest idea of how to go about that business. Conflicting decisions
followed in quick succession. First, an attempt was made to speed up economic development and diversify the economy
at a time when oil prices plummeted. In 1987 the attempt failed. Other remedies began to be tried. Some traces of a
free market economy began to develop, such as cooperatives in the services and public catering. Some components of a
controlled market economy cropped up."
The rapprochement with the West under Gorbachev was started with a far-reaching aim, Makarkin believes. In that
situation the Soviet economy was no longer capable of carrying the burden of the Cold War and the arms race. "Without
that no rapprochement might have ever happened. Also, there was the war in Afghanistan that had to be curtailed."
"In general, the Gorbachev era in home and foreign policies was that of haste, inconsistency, belated decisions
and forced moves. In the meantime, the people's living standards slumped and protest sentiment soared. Attempts to
woo the general public reached nowhere. In 1987-1988 social discontent soared and Boris Yeltsin emerged as its
embodiment."
"Hoping to ease tensions in society political reforms were declared only to cause centrifugal processes," Makarkin
recalls. "As a result, the Soviet republics began to drift ever farther apart - some before the August 1991 coup, and
others after. A counter-attempt to create something like a federation or confederation drew strong objections from
the hard-line conservatives, which led to the country's utter collapse.
But perestroika should not be painted only in dark colours, Makarkin said.
"One should remember that Gorbachev gave the people freedom - first, economic, and then political. For instance,
the freedom to travel out of the country and back: something everybody takes for granted. It was under Gorbachev that
the Church regained full legitimacy. Lastly, the freedom of speech, which has long become a fact of life."
"Also, Gorbachev largely takes the credit for avoiding a large-scale civil war and chaos and total chaos in a vast
country, however tragic the unrest in Tbilisi, Vilnius and Nagorno-Karabakh of those days may still look these days.
He decided against the extreme scenario implying the use of force, which many interpreted as a sign of weakness. It
should be remembered: those who dared use force merely accelerated the country's collapse."
The policy of perestroika proclaimed in the Soviet Union in 1985 has caused more harm than good, say 55% of
Russians, as follows from a Levada poll held in March. In contrast to this, ten years ago 70% said perestroika was a
bad choice.
"... There had been no winning of the Cold War, nor even a clear and shared understanding of what the Cold War was about. ..."
"... If the Cold War was only about balancing the Soviet Union and developing economically far beyond the Soviet Union and Soviet ideas faltering, that happened. However, there was obviously more or with no Soviet Union to counter we would not now be taking policy steps to carry on the Cold War. ..."
Obviously since there is a determined American Cold War effort being waged right now,
American historians were mistaken at the end of the 1980s.
There had been no winning of the
Cold War, nor even a clear and shared understanding of what the Cold War was about.
If the
Cold War was only about balancing the Soviet Union and developing economically far beyond the
Soviet Union and Soviet ideas faltering, that happened. However, there was obviously more or
with no Soviet Union to counter we would not now be taking policy steps to carry on the Cold
War.
"... No, America lost the Cold War. We may be richer than when it started, but a larger portion of our incomes go to the government . Even worse, the United States now leads the world in imprisonment –not just by rate but in absolute terms as well, with 1 out of every 150 Americans behind bars. This is largely a consequence of the War on Drugs, which is a war the American government wages upon its own citizens. In the years of the Cold War and since, we have become substantially less free. ..."
As everyone should know by now but probably does not, this is the twentieth anniversary of
the fall of the Berlin Wall. The first breach in that wall set off a chain reaction that would
eventually topple Communist governments and liberate people across half of Europe. It would
also end the Cold War between the West and the Soviet Block, substantially diminishing the
possibility for nuclear annihilation. However, when people say that the West–or more
particularly, America–won the Cold War, I'm not exactly sure what they mean.
Of course, America still exists as a country while the Soviet Union does not, but in a war
that is supposedly about ideas and ideals, victory must me something more than outlasting your
opponent.
I think the more appropriate way to look at the matter is to ask: who has benefited the most
from the end of the Cold War? Clearly, it is the peoples of East Germany, Poland, Estonia, etc.
that have gained the most. They are far richer than they were twenty years ago, and more
importantly they are able to speak and think as they please without fear of imprisonment,
torture, and possibly death at the hands of their governments. Even Russia, which is still far
from free, is a much freer place than it was under the Soviets. Dissident journalists do still
turn up missing, but to be known as a dissident journalist in the Soviet Union was almost an
impossibility. The post-Communist states all have a long way to go to complete freedom, but
with few exceptions , they are all now much
closer to that ideal than they were twenty years ago.
But can we say that the people of the United States also won the Cold War? Sadly, I
do not believe so. After World War II, the United States' standing army likely would have
shrunk back to the small peacetime numbers that existed for most of our history if it weren't
for the Cold War. Instead, the U.S. military spread across the world, allegedly to keep the
country free from the horrors of Communism. Ironically, keeping the people of America free
required enslaving a large percentage of her young men through the country's first peacetime
draft. And of course, soldiers must be housed, equipped, fed, and paid, which required a higher
level of taxation than Americans were used to in peacetime. Twenty years ago, the United States
could have reversed this course and reaped the peace dividend, but instead the government
pressed ahead and extended American influence into the former Soviet Block–taking on new
powers and responsibilities along the way.
No, America lost the Cold War. We may be richer than when it started, but a larger portion
of our incomes go to the government .
Even worse, the United States now leads the world in imprisonment
–not just by rate but in absolute terms as well, with 1 out of every 150 Americans behind
bars. This is largely a consequence of the War on Drugs, which is a war the American government
wages upon its own citizens. In the years of the Cold War and since, we have become
substantially less free.
One right that is still largely intact is the Freedom of Religion, but most versions of
American Christianity today bear little resemblance to the teachings found in the Gospels. In
this country today, people tend to worship the American Jesus , more known for killing
"hajis" than offering salvation. Christianity has become a state religion in this country as it
was for the Roman Emperor Constantine, and it is put to the same use of justifying military
power. Perhaps even worse than using the Prince of Peace for war, the president (provided he is
of the right party, of course) is now viewed by most as an avatar of God on Earth if not God
himself. Many American Christians have rendered everything unto Caesar and have nothing left
for God.
The world is a far freer place than it was twenty years ago, but America is not. Kierkegaard
once wrote "What slave in chains is as unfree as a tyrant!" As the tyrant of the world,
America is enslaved to all. Truly, America has gained the world, but lost her soul.
And yet we had plenty of (perhaps more) morality laws before the War on
Drugs
Perhaps the problem is that the government does not defend its borders (well, that and the
intelligence agencies have long funded some operations with drug money look at
Afghanistan!)?
Not everything illegal has a special allure, it really depends on enforcement of the
law.
And, John, a lot of Eastern Europe is NOT better off than it was 20 years ago, particularly
now that their speculative bubbles have burst. The signs are shinier, there are more decent
restaurants, but many other economic, social, and moral declines. And East Europeans have
gained freedom in many ways, but lost it in others.
People forget that many of the anti-Communist movements like the New Forum activists in the
DDR or Solidarnosc in Poland claimed they were pro-socialist (just for a more democratic,
participatory regime). The original point was not joining NATO and mass privatisation, but
rather civil liberties, and, sometimes, true conservative principles (pro-church, rediscovering
a spiritual mission of their people). But church attendance has increased slightly while
(corporal, at least) immorality has increased significantly! What gain is that? Much of the
national infrastructure was stolen by oligarchs who took the money to Switzerland, much others
were sold to foreigners.
Basically, (most of) East Europe has been absorbed into the control of the international
financial elite (or NWO or whatever you prefer to term it).
There are some very secular, more generous welfare states with considerably more civil
liberties. Of course they have their own problems, but that is not the source of our War of
Terror, War on Drugs, USA Patriot Act, etc. Paleoconservatives are too often naifs in
suggesting, essentially, that some lead us on the road to Hell with good intentions. It is
actually direct corruption in our govt that is the source of all our greatest national
catastrophes.
I found a figure for Cuba. The 2005 official statistics put it at about 490 per 100K, so
about 70% the US rate – still high, but no cigar. Oh I see a more recent (2008?) rate of
531, but still keeping pace with the US at about 70% its rate. That is a British univeristy
study – they estimate the Sudanese rate about 1/20 the US rate (so they had a civil war,
but they aren't totalitarian, what did you think?). Zimbabwe is given as about 1/5 the US rate.
The link, if it works to post it here-
Thomas, were you referring to England and the continental welfare
states with their anti free speech laws, confiscatory taxation and intrusive regulation of
every stage of life? Welfare states must be coercive in order to function. That's why
conservatives off all types abhor them.
The percentage of population in incarceration can be a deceptive statistic. States lie about
these things for a start. Totalitarian states like Cuba and China have the option of simply
killing offenders and of course many people just flee state control.
The US has a large degree of incarceration due to the popularity of "Get tough on drug
offender" legislation. We have a large criminal underclass in this country and after decades of
revolving door justice, the public just got fed up. It may not be humane, but it works. That's
democracy for you.
By the way, there is no system more involved in the criminal justice system than our welfare
bureaucracy. Most criminals are born into to welfare, graduate to truancy and addiction and
then crime, all under the watchful eye of social workers, guidance counselors, school
psychologists, court appointed counselors and probation officers, etc. etc. But this shouldn't
take any of the luster off welfare states, right?
Actually, China records their executions, they do not just shoot
criminals on sight. Neither does Cuba. And neither of those countries would qualify as the top
10 or 20 draconian, authoritarian states (i.e., where citizens shake in fear of the police) at
the moment.
England is widely known to be the most surveillance over its population, but it also has the
weakest welfare state in Western Europe!!!! Scandinavia has much more freedom in general and
much stronger welfare. Your attempt to make some sort of correlation is ridiculous. None of
these countries has a PATRIOT ACT, where you can be deemed an enemy and held indefinitely.
Britain has tried several times to enact something similar, but the Lords always block it. It
would be absurd in Germany even.
The United States is simply no longer a beacon of civil liberties even compared with true
welfare states. Sorry.
And if you are worried about the existence of a criminal underclass, you can probably blame
the extreme inequalities of wealth, the co-existence of hyper-First World and quasi-Third World
elements. All of Latin America has the same, though their welfare states are rarely very
advanced. I think you would find the same trend in Africa.
Mind you, I don't want to be like Sweden. I would prefer America to return to the 50s (not
entirely, but overall it would be an improvement). In the 50s there was a more even
redistribution of wealth and less nanny statism because there was more direct dirigisme. The
State was more involved in industrial planning and regulated trade and financial institutions.
Individuals paid less tax because corporations paid more. If the economy is planned such that
productive employment is a priority, then you can maintain a stable working class. If you take
that away, like the US and UK have done, then you get a permanent underclass with no prospects
of a stable life.
The problem with the 1950's is that they inevitably evolve into the
1960's. And soon we're where we are now. That's the way of welfare states, they introduce such
dependency, indolence and corruption that they just grow. But hey they always have their
defenders. As for the lack of a Patriot Act in Europe, you must be kidding. The least you could
do is read the British press. British subjects can be criminally charged for suggesting that
heterosexual couples make better adoptive parents than homosexuals. The French police do as
they please, and always have. The British do have preventative detention.
Nobody said that the Chinese and or Cubans shot people out of hand. But they do shoot people
rather than feed them for long periods, as we do. You can believe their statistics if you want
to.
Our underclass remains a dangerous nuisance despite public education, taxpayer supported
charity care, a multitude of Federal and State programs and affirmative action. Of course we
are importing more every day, adding to the income disparity you speak of. Perhaps we should
deport people to level out the disparity a bit. What do you think?
I like your idea of our no longer being a beacon. It's attracting the wrong sort.
Yes, of course we should deport people. Illegal immigration is not the
source of the US socioeconomic problems, but it compounds them by a serious factor.
Being a former resident of Houston, where parts of the city (probably the most red-voting
major city in the US) were literally crawling with illegals who undercut everyone else's wages
(that's why they are here), I can attest a bit to the corrupting effect this has on everyone
involved.
"... Westad faults Truman for being unwilling or unable to extend Franklin Roosevelt's friendly policy toward the USSR. ..."
"... "The Soviet assistance program for China was not only the biggest Moscow ever undertook outside its own borders," Westad writes. "It was also, in relative terms, the biggest such program undertaken by any country anywhere, including the US Marshall Plan for Europe." Within a decade following this generosity, they almost fought a nuclear war. ..."
"... WESTAD ALSO wrote a book on the fall of d�tente, for which he distinctly blames Americans. "Nixon and Kissinger had gone further in attempting to manage the Cold War together with the Soviet Union than most Americans were willing to accept," he writes. "Most Americans were simply not willing to tolerate that the United States could have an equal in international affairs, in the 1970s or ever." This is where Gaddis's immersion in American documents might have been helpful. Most Americans, at least on the anti-d�tente side, were worried not that the Soviet Union was at parity with the United States, but that it had actually exceeded America's capabilities. However wrongheaded and overly alarmist that perspective was, its importance in explaining American behavior should not be overlooked. ..."
"... Westad will have none of it. "Intent to move away from the Cold War as a national emergency, Eisenhower ended up institutionalizing it as policy and doctrine," he writes. "On the Korean War, the new president simply got lucky. . . . The turn toward a policy of massive nuclear retaliation meant preparing for strategic warfare on a scale that so far had seemed unimaginable." Pages later, he adds, ..."
"... Eisenhower lacked the imagination and political will to think about ending the Cold War after Stalin's death. This is a provocative portrayal of Eisenhower, a welcome antidote to the revisionism that can approach hagiography. But it is undercut by Westad's slight documentation. ..."
"... Cold War triumphalism has had pernicious effects on American foreign policy. A straight line can be drawn from the idea that Ronald Reagan's military buildup and assertive rhetoric ended the Cold War to the fantasy that the United States could rebuild the Middle East. The prominence of neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration was due largely to the widespread belief that they had been right in seeing the transformative potential of American power during the Cold War. Though Donald Trump was able, in the Republican primaries in 2016, to counter delusions of American omnipotence with delusions of American seclusion, the messianic streak still runs strong in the Republican Party and in segments of the Democratic Party. Its absence in current political debates should be seen as temporary. When it inevitably arises again, trouble will ensue. "We all lost the cold war," Gorbachev once said. The difficulty arises when one party thinks it won. ..."
Odd Arne Westad, The Cold War: A World History
(New York: Basic Books, 2017), 720 pp., $35.00.
IN 2005
, the Yale historian John Lewis Gaddis released his book,
The Cold War: A New History
. Glowing
reviews of the book followed in the
New York Times
and
Foreign Affairs
. Among the few dissenters was Tony Judt, a
New York University historian who died in 2010. Judt had opposed the Iraq War, when so many other intellectuals -- including
Gaddis -- joined in the delusions that George W. Bush could, should and would democratize the Middle East. By 2005, those fantasies
were discredited by events in Mesopotamia (though Gaddis was unchastened, arguing in the American Interest
as late as 2008
that the senior goal of American foreign policy should be "ending tyranny").
In the
New York Review of Books
, Judt argued that "John Lewis Gaddis has written a history of America's cold war: as
seen from America, as experienced in America, and told in a way most agreeable to many American readers." However brilliant his
works had been during the Cold War, Gaddis became an American triumphalist once the Berlin Wall collapsed. He had comparatively
little understanding of the Soviet experience and, most egregiously, didn't seem to care much about the enormous damage both
superpowers inflicted on what was then called the Third World. The result, Judt argued, was that the Cold War was "a story still to
be told."
With Odd Arne Westad's new book, the story is now told. Westad is the coauthor of several books on the Cold War, as well as
coeditor of the three-volume Cambridge History of the Cold War
. He also wrote
The Global Cold War: Third World
Interventions and the Making of Our Times
, which won the Bancroft Prize. As its title indicates,
The Global Cold War
suggested that the Cold War was very much a globe-spanning conflict, migrating into areas far beyond the borders of the two
superpowers.
His new book integrates that focus on the developing world with a more traditional emphasis on the great powers. It is aimed at a
general rather than a scholarly audience, with far fewer footnotes or archival research than his previous works (more on that
later).
The Cold War: A World History
is told chronologically, but unlike most books on the subject, it begins with the
right period.
THE FIRST
well-regarded book on the war written from a post�Berlin Wall perspective was Martin Walker's
Cold
War,
published in 1994. Like so many others to come, it began with the dissension in the Allied ranks in the closing years of
World War II. By beginning with an earlier period, Westad advances beyond that approach. He is able to devote some attention to the
ideological sources of the struggle, which began with Lenin's interpretation of communism, prioritizing global revolution and
antagonism toward the noncommunist world. "The Cold War was born from the global transformations of the late nineteenth century and
was buried as a result of tremendously rapid changes a hundred years later," he writes. Those changes include decolonization, the
ascension of the United States to world power and the gradual decline of scientific socialism, as well as the two world wars. "The
Great War jumpstarted the destinies of the two future Cold War Superpowers. It made the United States the global embodiment of
capitalism and it made Russia a Soviet Union, a permanent challenge to the capitalist world." Westad also makes the
thought-provoking claim, rather unusual in a book on the Cold War, that
it is therefore quite possible that the Cold War will be reduced in significance by future historians, who from their vantage
point will attach more significance to the origins of Asian economic power, or the beginning of space exploration, or the
eradication of smallpox.
Westad proceeds from there through all the stops along the way to the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991. Separate chapters
examine India, China, the Middle East and Latin America, as well as summaries of Richard Nixon's diplomacy and the reigns of
Kennedy, Brezhnev and Gorbachev. That he manages to do all this in largely sequential fashion is doubly impressive.
The Cold War
evinces a lifetime of research and thought on the subject. Compelling ideas and valuable insights appear
frequently, such as: "In spite of their attractiveness on a global scale, neither the Soviet nor the US system was ever fully
replicated elsewhere." Or the explanation for communism's appeal in Vietnam: "One reason, ironically, was the integration of
Vietnamese elites into French culture and education, from whence the post-1914 generation took over the radicalization that was
prevalent among French youth, too." Or: "In Asia as in Europe, US policy in the early Cold War was more oriented toward the
expansion of capitalism as such than toward a unique preservation of US national economic advantage or the interests of specific US
companies."
Westad's assessment is that some sort of conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union was inevitable once the common
foe of Nazi Germany was extinguished. "Leaders of the two countries had seen each other as adversaries ever since the Russian
Revolution of 1917, and in some cases even before that," he writes. Illustrative of his measured approach throughout the book,
Westad assigns blame for the conflict to both parties, though not so much that he is unable to make moral distinctions. Stalin's
determination to establish control in Eastern Europe, particularly in Poland, contributed greatly to the breakdown of good relations
with Britain and the United States. But, he writes, "it was containment that made postwar conflict into a Cold War." The United
States was unwilling to grant the Soviets a traditional sphere of influence, let alone see them as a comparable power deserving of
commensurate respect. Seen from 2017, it might seem absurd that so many Europeans, even in England, looked upon the Soviet Union
with admiration and gratitude. But, however much Americans like to forget it, it was the Red Army that "tore the guts out of the
German military machine," in Winston Churchill's colorful phrase.
Westad faults Truman for being unwilling or unable to extend Franklin Roosevelt's friendly policy toward the USSR. Stalin might
have hunkered down and developed foreign-policy paranoia regardless of Truman's behavior, he concedes. "But the intensity of the
conflict, including the paranoia that it later produced on both sides, might have been significantly reduced if more attempts had
been made by the stronger power to entice Moscow toward forms of cooperation." This is somewhat unfair to Truman. The day he was
sworn in as president after Roosevelt's death, Truman said in a statement he intended "to carry on as he believed the President
would have done." There is little reason to doubt his sincerity. In From Roosevelt to Truman
, University of Notre Dame
professor Wilson Miscamble credibly argued that Truman began his presidency with open-mindedness toward the Soviets but was
convinced by events that cooperation was impossible. He wasn't alone.
ASIA, MEANWHILE
, experienced rapid decolonization. Both the United States and the Soviet Union were resolutely
opposed to traditional European imperialism, however much they acted as imperialist powers in their own regions. Combined with the
destitution of the former colonial powers, this meant that Asian nations were freer to pursue their own destinies. Of course, in
Japan and Korea, those destinies were determined by their occupiers, who molded these societies in their own images. It is a sign of
Westad's attentiveness to facts that, without ever succumbing to anything resembling American chauvinism, he can write something as
direct as: "The Korean War came from Stalin's change of mind. If he had not given the go-ahead to Kim, there would have been no
war."
Westad betrays no romanticism toward the Soviet Union or its communist admirers -- that might seem like a low bar, but there are
still scholars like Bruce Cumings who look fondly on the Marxist regimes -- but the book makes the clear-eyed observation,
Only by industrializing fast could a country become socialist and modern. The policy had an obvious appeal: in countries on
the European periphery, where there was a profound sense of having fallen behind, and in countries outside of Europe, such as China,
Korea, and Vietnam, rapid industrialization seemed indeed to be the way forward.
Westad might have added that the Soviet Communist Party's untouchable command of power was similarly appealing to political
leaders and intellectuals worldwide.
Immediately prior to
The Cold War
, Westad's latest book was a study of China's foreign policy since 1750. His mastery of
the subject is evident in a chapter called "China's Scourge." It is valuable not only for a discussion of how the Chinese Communist
Party managed to win the civil war against the Nationalists, but also for a succinct reminder of why and how swiftly relations
dissolved between the CCP and the Soviets. "The Soviet assistance program for China was not only the biggest Moscow ever undertook
outside its own borders," Westad writes. "It was also, in relative terms, the biggest such program undertaken by any country
anywhere, including the US Marshall Plan for Europe." Within a decade following this generosity, they almost fought a nuclear war.
Similarly incisive here is a chapter on India. Often neglected in general histories of the Cold War, India was for a while the
leader of the Non-Aligned nations. Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru was progressive, but intent on keeping his newly independent
country truly independent. This, of course, infuriated the Americans, for whom any friendliness with the USSR was interpreted as
hostility to them. And yet, when India's moral purity conflicted with its conflict with China, nationalism prevailed, leading to a
brief war. "In spite of its many efforts, even a country as a significant as India was never able to fully break away from the
global conflict molding its policies," Westad concludes.
WESTAD ALSO
wrote a book on the fall of d�tente, for which he distinctly blames Americans. "Nixon and Kissinger
had gone further in attempting to manage the Cold War together with the Soviet Union than most Americans were willing to accept," he
writes. "Most Americans were simply not willing to tolerate that the United States could have an equal in international affairs, in
the 1970s or ever." This is where Gaddis's immersion in American documents might have been helpful. Most Americans, at least on the
anti-d�tente side, were worried not that the Soviet Union was at parity with the United States, but that it had actually exceeded
America's capabilities. However wrongheaded and overly alarmist that perspective was, its importance in explaining American behavior
should not be overlooked.
Indeed, Westad's decision to reduce the research shown to the readers in this book makes some of his unorthodox judgments
difficult to credit. Most conspicuously, Westad assesses Dwight Eisenhower harshly, but without offering enough support for his
claims. In the late 1950s and 1960s, the evaluation of Ike was decidedly mixed. He was too complacent, it was said, too moderate and
timid. He favored a strategic posture built around nuclear weapons that led to an arms race. He failed to confront Joe McCarthy and
McCarthyism. He initiated the first of many ill-considered CIA interventions in foreign countries, in Guatemala and Iran. And he
added a religious dimension to the Cold War, which elevated the conflict beyond the already-dangerous levels that existed when he
took power in 1953.
That perception gave way in the 1980s to a consideration that Eisenhower was not complacent, but subtle. The opening of archives
in the 1970s convinced many that his was, as the political scientist Fred Greenstein put it in his 1982 book of the same name, "the
hidden-hand presidency." The popular historian Stephen Ambrose did much to further this view, first in 1981's
Ike's Spies:
Eisenhower and the Espionage Establishment
, and then in a biography, released in two volumes in 1983 and 1984. (Writing in the
New Republic
in 2006, the journalist John Judis observed that Ambrose's books "changed many a liberal's view of the general,"
counting himself among them.)
The revisionist view of Eisenhower has now become orthodoxy. He routinely numbers among historians' rankings of the top ten
presidents. Far from sharing the contemporary perception of him as popular but ineffectual -- "It's just like Eisenhower. The worse I
do, the more popular I get," JFK said after the Bay of Pigs disaster -- we like Ike as much as the people who wore his campaign
buttons. Celebrity architect Frank Gehry designed an Eisenhower memorial that Congress has funded to the tune of $100 million, to
sit across from the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum, on Washington's Independence Avenue.
Most scholars lean toward the view that Ike was a first-rate Cold War strategist. He balanced the budget thrice, halting the
unsustainable economic and military buildup that resulted from the Korean War. He set diplomatic precedents by meeting with Soviet
leaders and organizing purposeful summits. And he outflanked domestic hysteria, establishing a bipartisan commitment to a strategy
of containment. Predominant is the view expressed by Robert Bowie and Richard Immerman in their book, Waging Peace: How
Eisenhower Shaped a Cold War Strategy
:
Later events . . . have enhanced appreciation of his prudent and sober judgment. In a turbulent and dangerous stage of
East-West relations, with an untested and erratic Soviet leadership and a changing strategic environment, Eisenhower managed a
succession of crises and set a course that preserved both security and peace.
Westad will have none of it. "Intent to move away from the Cold War as a national emergency, Eisenhower ended up
institutionalizing it as policy and doctrine," he writes. "On the Korean War, the new president simply got lucky. . . . The turn
toward a policy of massive nuclear retaliation meant preparing for strategic warfare on a scale that so far had seemed
unimaginable." Pages later, he adds,
If the president was not a Cold War hysteric, neither was he someone who could conceive of a world without the confrontation
with the Soviet Union. Eisenhower lacked the imagination and political will to think about ending the Cold War after Stalin's death. This is a provocative portrayal of Eisenhower, a welcome antidote to the revisionism that can approach hagiography. But it is
undercut by Westad's slight documentation.
Cold War triumphalism has had pernicious effects on American foreign policy. A straight line can be drawn from the idea that
Ronald Reagan's military buildup and assertive rhetoric ended the Cold War to the fantasy that the United States could rebuild the
Middle East. The prominence of neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration was due largely to the widespread belief that
they had been right in seeing the transformative potential of American power during the Cold War. Though Donald Trump was able, in
the Republican primaries in 2016, to counter delusions of American omnipotence with delusions of American seclusion, the messianic
streak still runs strong in the Republican Party and in segments of the Democratic Party. Its absence in current political debates
should be seen as temporary. When it inevitably arises again, trouble will ensue. "We all lost the cold war," Gorbachev once said.
The difficulty arises when one party thinks it won.
Jordan Michael Smith is the author of the Kindle single
Humanity: How Jimmy Carter Lost an Election and Transformed the
Post-Presidency
.
Harry Dexter White: Treasury Assistant Secretary* who was the major force behind the
Bretton Woods Conference and the institutional reconstruction of the post-World War II world
economy. He accepted enough of John Maynard Keynes's proposals to lay the groundwork for the
greatest generation of economic growth the world has ever seen. It was the extraordinary
prosperity set in motion by the Bretton Woods' System and institutions--the "Thirty Glorious
Years"--that demonstrated that political democracy and the mixed economy could deliver and
distribute economic prosperity.
George Kennan: Author of the "containment" strategy that won the Cold War.
Argued--correctly--that World War III could be avoided if the Western Alliance made clear its
determination to "contain" the Soviet Union and World Communism, and that the internal
contradictions of the Soviet Union would lead it to evolve into something much less dangerous
than Stalin's tyranny.
George Marshall: Architect of victory in World War II. Post-World War II Secretary of
State who proposed the Marshall Plan, another key step in the economic and institutional
reconstruction of Western Europe after World War II.
Arthur Vandenberg: Leading Republican Senator from Michigan who made foreign policy truly
bipartisan for a few years. Without Vandenberg, it is doubtful that Truman, Marshall,
Acheson, and company would have been able to muster enough Congressional support to do their
work.
Paul Hoffman: Chief Marshall Plan administrator. The man who did the most to turn the
Marshall Plan from a good idea to an effective aid program.
Dean Acheson: Principal architect of the post-World War II Western Alliance. That
Britain, France, West Germany, Italy, and the United States reached broad consensus on how to
wage Cold War is more due to Dean Acheson's diplomatic skill than to any single other
person.
Harry S Truman: The President who decided that the U.S. had to remain engaged
overseas--had to fight the Cold War--and that the proper way to fight the Cold War was to
adopt Kennan's proposed policy of containment. His strategic choices were, by and large, very
good ones.
Dwight D. Eisenhower: As first commander-in-chief of NATO, played an indispensable role
in turning the alliance into a reality. His performance as President was less satisfactory:
too many empty words about "rolling back" the Iron Curtain, too much of a willingness to try
to skimp on the defense budget by adopting "massive retaliation" as a policy, too much trust
in the erratic John Foster Dulles.
Gerald Ford: In the end, the thing that played the biggest role in the rise of the
dissident movement behind the Iron Curtain was Gerald Ford's convincing the Soviet Union to
sign the Helsinki Accords. The Soviet Union thought that it had gained worldwide recognition
of Stalin's land grabs. But what it had actually done was to commit itself and its allies to
at least pretending to observe norms of civil and political liberties. And as the Communist
Parties of the East Bloc forgot that in the last analysis they were tyrants seated on thrones
of skulls, this Helsinki commitment emboldened their opponents and their governments'
failures to observe it undermined their own morale.
George Shultz: Convinced Ronald Reagan--correctly--that Mikhail Gorbachev's "perestroika"
and "glasnost" were serious attempts at reform and liberalization, and needed to be taken
seriously. Without Shultz, it is unlikely that Gorbachev would have met with any sort of
encouragement from the United States--and unlikely that Gorbachev would have been able to
remain in power long enough to make his attempts at reform irreversible.
*Also, almost surely
an "Agent of Influence" and perhaps an out-and-out spy for Stalin's Russia. If so, never did
any intelligence service receive worse service from an agent than Stalin's Russia did from
Harry Dexter White....
I'm reading "The
Battle of Bretton Woods: John Maynard Keynes, Harry Dexter White, and the Making of a New World
Order (Council on Foreign Relations Books (Princeton University Press))" by Benn Steil and
wanted to share this quote with you.
"As regards the economics White advocated, they were hardly Marxist. They were by this time
what would be described as thoroughly Keynesian. He insisted that government should take an
active role in supporting economic activity; certainly more so than was orthodox before the
Great Depression, but he never pushed for broad government control of the means of production.
His writings on international monetary affairs express a concern with the need to fashion a
system that "reduces the necessity of restrictions on private enterprise."As for White's
domestic politics, these were mainstream New Deal progressive, and there is no evidence that he
admired communism as a political ideology."
ReplyFebruary 15, 2019 at 12:49
jorgensen said...
Vannevar Bush pushed for government support of science after the Second
World War and should get some credit for America's scientific dominance through the Cold War.
ReplyFebruary 16, 2019 at 15:38
andres said... The above list is old hat, so to speak. I would add the following two
lists:
Russians Who Did the Most to Win the Cold War (for both sides):
1. Georgi Zhukov (Was an unbelievable s.o.b. during WWII, but did the right thing having the
Red Army side with Khruschev and Malenkov against Beria). 2. Nikita Khruschev (secret speech, ousting of Stalin's old cronies and final unwillingness to
go to war over Cuba outweigh Hungary and U-2 incident, imo). 3. Aleksandr Solshenitsyn (self-explanatory). 4. Boris Pasternak (Dr. Zhivago is a better read than The Gulag Archipelago). 5. Roy Medvedev (Let History Judge). 6. Vasili Arkhipov (Don't Push the Button I). 7. Andrei Sakharov (self-explanatory). 8. Stanislav Petrov (Don't Push the Button II). 9. Mikhail Gorbachev (glasnost plus withdrawal from Afghanistan). 10. Boris Yeltsin (lousy president, but energetic opposition to August 1991 coup was
vital).
Americans Who Tried Their Best to Make the U.S. Lose the Cold War.
1. Douglas MacArthur. 2. John Foster Dulles. 3. Allen Dulles. 4. Barry Goldwater. 5. Robert McNamara/McGeorge Bundy/Maxwell Taylor/W.W. Rostow (joint award for Vietnam) 6. William Westmoreland (made it even worse). 7. Richard Nixon (carpet bomber in chief, plus undermined 1968 Vietnam peace talks). 8. Henry Kissinger (took over from JF Dulles as military coup enabler in chief, and nearly
pushed India to Russia's side after giving a blank check to Pakistan). 9. Ronald Reagan (was clearly pointed toward WWIII before Schultz and GHW Bush brought him
around).
(There are lots more, but I've tried to limit the list to those who were either in the
executive branch or came close (Goldwater). LBJ could also be included, but it is still being
argued whether he led his cabinet or his cabinet led him into Vietnam).
ReplyFebruary 16, 2019 at 22:52
""Certain key unknown figures in the Federal Reserve may have 'conspired' with key unknown
figures at the Bank of New York to create a situation where $240 billion in off balance sheet
securities created in 1991 as part of an official covert operation to overthrow the Soviet
Union, could be cleared without publicly acknowledging their existence. These securities,
originally managed by Cantor Fitzgerald, were cleared and settled in the aftermath of
September 11th
through the BoNY. The $100 billion account balance bubble reported by the Wall Street
Journalas being experienced in the BoNY was tip of a three day operation, when these
securities were moved from off-balance-sheet to the balance sheet.
"... By the late 1990s, national income had fallen by more than 50 percent(compare that with the 27 percent drop in output during the great American depression), investment by 80 percent, real wages by half, and meat and dairy herds by 75 percent. . . . while epidemics of cholera and typhus . . . re-emerged, millions of children suffer[ed] from malnutrition and adult life expectancy . . . plunged." Several of the oligarchs were prosecuted and harassed by Putin's government between 2000 and 2004, before an unofficial agreement was struck to permit most of them to keep their lives and their fortunes as long as they demurred from opposing Putin's political power. ..."
Mikhail Khodorkovsky was found guilty of fraud related to his control of Siberian oil fields through his Yukos corporation and was
sentenced to nine years in prison on this date in 2005. Khodorkovsky, who was behind bars until Vladimir Putin pardoned him in 2013,
is half-Jewish (on his father's side).
Many of the Russian oligarchs, most of whom exploited their political connections during the privatization years under Boris Yeltsin's
highly corrupt government to become hugely wealthy, are similarly half-Jewish or Jewish, including Boris Berezovsky, who took over
Russia's main television channel and died under uncertain circumstances (likely suicide) in 2013; Alexander Abramov, a steel magnate;
Mikhail Fridman, a banker; Roman Abramovich, a younger billionaire investor; Viktor Vekselberg, an aluminum tycoon; and Leonid Mikhelson,
a natural-gas billionaire, and a half-dozen others.
The shock-capitalism that vaulted these men to the Forbes list of billionaires is known in Russia as the katastroika
and "brought in its wake mass pauperisation and unemployment," writes Seumas Milne in The Guardian , "wild extremes of
inequality; rampant crime; virulent antisemitism and ethnic violence; combined with legalised gangsterism on a heroic scale and precipitous
looting of public assets. . . .
By the late 1990s, national income had fallen by more than 50 percent(compare that with the 27 percent drop in output during
the great American depression), investment by 80 percent, real wages by half, and meat and dairy herds by 75 percent. . . . while
epidemics of cholera and typhus . . . re-emerged, millions of children suffer[ed] from malnutrition and adult life expectancy . .
. plunged." Several of the oligarchs were prosecuted and harassed by Putin's government between 2000 and 2004, before an unofficial
agreement was struck to permit most of them to keep their lives and their fortunes as long as they demurred from opposing Putin's
political power.
"The oligarchs, idiotically rich in a country that was largely poor, and given to parading their wealth in a manner that makes
American hip-hoppers look like an especially reticent community of Amish farmers, could certainly have given any former Soviet citizen
pause to wonder, as he queued for beetroot, what the proletarian revolution had been for. The oligarchs, not content with buying
companies, villas, yachts, planes and the most beautiful of Russia's beautiful women, also bought power. In 1996, they connived to
engineer the re-election of the politically and physically ailing Boris Yeltsin. In 2000, they helped steer Yeltsin's successor into
power -- Vladimir Putin, a saturnine former spook with the KGB, and its descendant organisation, the FSB. This, as Russian Godfathers
demonstrates, may have been the moment at which the oligarchs out-clevered themselves." �Andrew Mueller, The Guardian
It is apparent that the caricature of the Soviet Union in both productions is really a stand-in for the present-day Russian government
under Vladimir Putin. As only American exceptionalism could permit, Hollywood did not hold the same disdain for his predecessor,
Boris Yeltsin, whose legacy of high inflation and national debt have since been eliminated. In fact, most have forgotten that the
same filmdom community outraged about Russia's supposed interference in the 2016 U.S. election made a celebratory movie back in 2003,
Spinning Boris , which practically boasted about the instrumental role the West played in Yeltsin's 1996 reelection in Russia.
The highly unpopular alcoholic politician benefited from a near universal media bias as virtually all the federation's news outlets
came under the control of the 'oligarchs' (in America known simply as billionaires) which his economic policies of mass privatization
of state industry enriched overnight.
Yeltsin initially polled at less than 10% and was far behind Communist Party candidate Gennady Zyuganov until he became the recipient
of billions from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) thanks to his corrupt campaign manager, Anatoly Chubais, now one of the most
hated men in all of Russia. After the purging of votes and rampant ballot-box stuffing, Yeltsin successfully closed the gap between
his opponent thanks to the overt U.S. meddling.
Spinning Boris was directed by Roger Spottiswoode, who previously helmed an installment in the James Bond series, Tomorrow
Never Dies . The 1997 entry in the franchise is one of thousands of Hollywood films and network television shows exposed by journalists
Matthew Alford and Tom Secker as having been influenced or directly assisted by the Pentagon and CIA in their must-read book National
Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood. Based on evidence from documents revealed in Freedom
of Information Act (FOIA) requests, their investigation divulges the previously unknown extent to which the national security complex
has gone in exerting control over content in the film industry. While it has always been known that the military held sway over movies
that required usage of its facilities and equipment to be produced, the level of impact on such films in the pre-production and editing
stages, as well as the control over non-military themed flicks one wouldn't suspect to be under supervision by Washington and Langley,
is exhaustively uncovered.
As expected, Hollywood and the military-industrial complex's intimate relationship during the Cold War is featured prominently
in Alford and Secker's investigative work. It is unclear whether HBO or Netflix sought US military assistance or were directly involved
with the national security state in their respective productions, but these are just two recent examples of many where the correlated
increase in geopolitical tensions with Moscow is reflected. The upcoming sequel to DC's Wonder Woman set to be released next
year , Wonder Woman 1984, featuring the female superhero " coming into conflict with the Soviet Union during the Cold War
in the 1980s ", is yet another. Reprising her role is Israeli actress and IDF veteran is Gal Gadot as the title character, ironically
starring in a blockbuster that will demonize the Eurasian state which saved her ethnicity from extinction. Given the Pentagon's involvement
in the debacle surounding 2014's The Interview which provoked very real tensions with North Korea, it is likely they are at
least closely examining any entertainment with content regarding Russia, if not directly pre-approving it for review.
Ultimately, the Western panic about its imperial decline is not limited to assigning blame to Moscow. Sinophobia has manifested
as well in recent films such as the 2016 sci-fi film Arrival where the extra-terrestrials who reach Earth seem more interested
in communicating with Beijing as the global superpower than the U.S. However, while the West forebodes the return of Russia and China
to greater standing, you can be certain its real fear lies elsewhere. The fact that Chernobyl and Stranger Things are
as preoccupied with portraying socialism in a bad light as they are in rendering Moscow nefarious shows the real underlying trepidation
of the ruling elite that concerns the resurgence of class consciousness. The West must learn its lesson that its state of perpetual
war has caused its own downfall or it could attempt a last line of defense that would inevitably conscript all of humanity to its
death as the ruling class nearly did to the world in 1914 and 1939.
"... Maher was right. I've been saying for decades -- since Brezhnev was still alive -- that the Soviet Union was a functional theocracy. ..."
"... In practice, the USSR behaved exactly like a brutal totalitarian theocracy would. They had an impersonal god (the theory of history that would lead inevitably to heaven on Earth) which the government treated as the source of their authority and their justification for everything they did in the name of the Revolution. ..."
"... They had a state church (the Communist Party -- no rivals allowed) that you needed to join to get anywhere in society. They had prophets (look what they did with Lenin after his death), saints (heroes of the Revolution), idols, sacred texts that could not be challenged, brutal suppression of other religions, witch hunts for heretics (anyone who opposed the Revolution). ..."
"... So yes: the USSR turned "communism" into their de facto state religion. ..."
To this day, Maher's response still leaves me dumbfounded: "I would say that's a secular
religion." Before Douthat could ask what the hell a secular religion is, Maher changed the
subject. The meaning of Maher's nonsensical statement was clear: everything Maher doesn't
like is religion.
Maher was right. I've been saying for decades -- since Brezhnev was still alive --
that the Soviet Union was a functional theocracy. Sure, they didn't use God or angels or
miracles in their rhetoric, but that's just surface trappings.
In practice, the USSR behaved exactly like a brutal totalitarian theocracy would. They
had an impersonal god (the theory of history that would lead inevitably to heaven on Earth)
which the government treated as the source of their authority and their justification for
everything they did in the name of the Revolution.
They had a state church (the Communist Party -- no rivals allowed) that you needed to
join to get anywhere in society. They had prophets (look what they did with Lenin after his
death), saints (heroes of the Revolution), idols, sacred texts that could not be challenged,
brutal suppression of other religions, witch hunts for heretics (anyone who opposed the
Revolution).
So yes: the USSR turned "communism" into their de facto state religion. No, they
didn't include personified invisible spirits in their ideology. But if it looks like a duck,
walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ....
"... Mao only understood power. He sensed Khrushchev as 'weak' and acted as if he wanted to be the new Stalin. He also made international statements that made the US-USSR relations much worse. He berated Khrushchev for seeking co-existence with the West and pressed on for more World Revolution. ..."
"... It was all so stupid. China and Russia could have gotten along well if not for Mao's impetuosity. Of course, Khrushchev could be reckless, contradictory, and erratic, and his mixed signals to the West also heightened tensions. Also, he was caught between a rock and a hard place where the Eastern Bloc was concerned. He wanted to de-Stalinize, but this could lead to events like the Hungarian Uprising. ..."
Abrams is giving the West too much credit for the Sino-Soviet rift of the late 5os and 60s.
That was NOT the doing of the CIA or Western Europe. It was 90% the fault of Mao who tried
to shove Khrushchev aside as the head of world communism. Because Stalin had treated Mao
badly, Khrushchev wanted to make amends and treated Mao with respect. But Mao turned out to
be a total a-hole. There are two kinds of people: Those who appreciate friendly gestures and
those who seek kindness as 'weakness'.
It's like Hitler saw Chamberlain's offer as weakness and pushed ahead. Being kind is nice,
but one should never be kind to psychopaths, and Khrushchev was nice to the wrong person.
Mao only understood power. He sensed Khrushchev as 'weak' and acted as if he wanted to be
the new Stalin. He also made international statements that made the US-USSR relations much
worse. He berated Khrushchev for seeking co-existence with the West and pressed on for more
World Revolution.
He also ignored Soviet advice not to attempt radical economic policies (that were soon to
bring China to economic ruin -- at least Stalin's collectivization led to rise of industry;
in contrast, Mao managed to destroy both agriculture and heavy industry).
When Stalin was alive, he didn't treat Mao with any respect, and Mao disliked Stalin but
still respected him because Mao understood Power. With Stalin gone, Khrushchev showed Mao
some respect, but Mao felt no respect for Khrushchev who was regarded as a weakling and
sucker.
It was all so stupid. China and Russia could have gotten along well if not for Mao's
impetuosity. Of course, Khrushchev could be reckless, contradictory, and erratic, and his
mixed signals to the West also heightened tensions. Also, he was caught between a rock and a
hard place where the Eastern Bloc was concerned. He wanted to de-Stalinize, but this could
lead to events like the Hungarian Uprising.
Anyway, Putin and Xi, perhaps having grown up in less turbulent times, are more stable and
mature in character and temperament than Mao and Khrushchev. They don't see the Russo-China
relations as a zero sum game of ego but a way for which both sides can come to the table
halfway, which is all one can hope for.
If we consider economics to be an objective science, its rules should also have universal
significance and use, despite differences in societal order. However, socialists of the materialist
camp are committed to the idea that common ownership of the means of production would change the
way economic laws unfold under socialism.
Basically, they reject the notion of the
universality and objectivity of economic rules by suggesting that the laws would change along with
a change to the social formation.
Thus,
communists adhered to the Marxian idea that socialism would rectify a "surplus
value" law, end the "exploitation" of workers, and efficiently regulate the production,
distribution, and consumption aspects of the economy.
They sought to eliminate the market
regulatory mechanism and replace it with directives of the central planning authority. Bolsheviks
enthusiastically got down to business: they eradicated private property, collectivized everything
and everyone, and implemented an official planned economy.
Did it effectively turn off market relations as they thought it would?
No. In contrast to the common perception, socialism has been unable to kill the market economy.
The market went underground and turned into a black market. Black markets existed in capitalist
countries as well, but they worked underground because they dealt in illegal commodities and
services. The black market under socialism served the same purpose, but the list of commodities and
services included mostly items of everyday and innocent consumption that people under capitalism
could easily purchase in stores. Virtually all groups of personal consumption products found their
way to the black market at some time and in some places. Everything from jar lids to toilet paper
was subject to black-market relations.
Despite the proclaimed planned economy, people were engaged in market relations on all levels
and trusted more the price of the goods and services that were established by the market and not
dictated by the government. The official exchange rate of the ruble to the dollar was 0.66 to 1 in
1980. But nobody except party nomenclature was able to enjoy such a favorable exchange rate. At the
same time, the black market offered 4 rubles for 1 American dollar.
There was no production of jeans in the Soviet Union, but like all their peers abroad,
Soviet youth wore jeans.
The price was 180�250 rubles for a pair depending on the brand,
which was almost twice as much as the monthly wage of an entry-level engineer. A visiting nurse
charged 1 ruble for one injection if a patient lived below the fifth floor. The price reached 1.5
rubles for patients who lived on the fifth floor and up. A plumber happily repaired a faucet for
just a bottle of vodka.
Two Prices for Everything
Therefore, in the Soviet Union, any significant goods had two price tags: one real and
another virtual.
The state set the first price through some obscure methods; the usual
mechanism of supply and demand established the second price on the market. If you were lucky, after
several hours of standing in a queue, you could purchase goods at the state price. However, due to
the chronic lack of everything for everyone, the same product could be bought on the black market
at a much higher price. The virtual price became real on the black market and reflected the actual
value of the goods for the buyer. The presence of two price tags is a confirmation of the thesis of
Ludwig von Mises regarding the impossibility of economic calculations under socialism. At the same
time, this is proof of the immortality and immutability of the economic laws of the free market,
even under a totalitarian regime.
Therefore, two economic systems and two sets of prices
co-exist under socialism.
People were forced to use the services of the black market,
even under the penalty of
severe punishment, including up to the death penalty.
Almost the entire society was
engaged in various corruption schemes to support a certain standard of living. There was a
paradoxical situation when the shelves of the supermarkets were empty, but refrigerators at home
were more or less full. The black market was filled with smuggled goods from abroad, as well as
commodities produced in underground workshops. But more often, everyday products were specifically
kept from retail to create a shortage and sell them on the black market at a speculative price.
Socialism had undermined the normal flows of production, distribution, and consumption by ignoring
the objective laws of economics. Nevertheless, an underground market and the intrinsic
entrepreneurial spirit of the people helped them survive the socialist madness.
Regardless of the proclaimed successes of the Soviet economy reported by Communist party
leaders, the socialist economy was unable to compete with its capitalist counterparts.
Communists decided to create a system that somehow mimicked the work that a free market had
successfully and automatically performed for centuries. Thus, they introduced socialist competition
that was supposed to replace free market competition. Surely enough, it was an inadequate and
unfortunate replacement.
The rewards for winners in the capitalist competition were far
higher than for the winners under socialism.
For example, the capitalist winner enjoyed a
significant increase in well-being.
Moreover, the principal winner of the free market competition was society as a whole. This is a
natural feature of a free market economy and the main reason why the evolution of human societies
selected this mode of production. A competition during socialism gave to the winners some
publicity, a certificate of honor, maybe a trip to a "sanatorium" (that is, a health spa), and
other bagatelles that people usually did not appreciate. But most importantly, society as a whole
did not enjoy a significant improvement in well-being.
People were not sufficiently stimulated and were underpaid, which explained the lower labor
productivity compared to capitalist countries. Moreover, this is despite the notion that the means
of production, at last, belong to the workers themselves. People had a famous saying that can be
considered the quintessence of Soviet-style socialism:
"They [the government] pretend
to pay, and we pretend to work."
Socialism is a set of systems that try to
artificially inhibit the free flow of
objective economic laws by creating subjective barriers in the form of specific legislation and
punitive policies
. Socialists mistakenly think that if they assault private property and
market relations, the economic laws will also change. They have taken up the task which, in
principle, has no rational solution. Nothing good comes from the idea of ignoring or violating the
fundamental laws of economics. These laws still exist, regardless of opinions and neglect to
recognize their real character and the impossibility of changing them.
Socialism disrupts the evolutionary process and leads society to a dead end.
The desperate economic situation of ordinary folks in
Venezuela
,
Cuba
,
and North Korea -- the remnants of socialist undertakings -- is a direct result of building a society
in defiance of the natural action of the fundamental law of economics. As a rule, socialist regimes
were buying time by employing slave labor, plunder, coercion, and everything else that an
aggressive totalitarian regime could offer. However, in the end, the means of socialistic life
support was exhausted, and than returning to the natural and healthy market relations, where the
laws of economics work for the benefit of the human race.
The same laws of market economics have worked in different human societies: from pre-historic to
post-industrial, but
still socialists continue to entertain the idea of tampering with
these forces of nature.
So easy to say when you so blithely ignore the historical injustices, the inequality of
opportunity and the theft - the first person to claim a parcel of land as their own exclusive
property was committing an act of theft.
It's not entrepreneurial; it's base rent-seeking and
it was a violent act of forced approbriation by denying natural rights to others.
The
subsequent claims to title are enforced by the threat of violence through the emergence of a
pervasive state.
A modern example is the oligarchs who carved up the commons in a collapsing and
disintegrating Soviet Union. Their's was an act of theft committed against society and the
common good. Your definition of freedom is predicated on theft and is a denial of natural
freedoms,
The question about the causes of the collapse and destruction of the Soviet Union – is not idle. It does not lose its relevance
today, 22 years after occurred the death of the Soviet Union . Why? because some on the basis of this event concluded that, say,
the capitalist model of the economy more competitive, more efficient and has no alternatives. American political scientist
Francis Fukuyama after the collapse of the Soviet Union even hastened to declare that it was the "End of history": humanity has reached the
highest and last stage of its development in the form of a universal, global capitalism. The relevance of studying the shadow economy,
ssco opinion of this kind of political scientists, sociologists and economists, discussing the socialist economic model does not
deserve attention.
Better to focus on improving the capitalist model of the economy, i. E. A model that targets all members of society to the enrichment,
and a means of enrichment (profit) is the exploitation of one person by another. However, there are such "Natural" attributes of
the capitalist model of social and income inequality, competition, cyclical crises, bankruptcies, unemployment and the like. All
proposed improvements are aimed only at mitigating the inhuman consequences of capitalism that is reminiscent of utopian attempts
to limit the appetite of a wolf devouring a sheep. We proceed from the fact that the key socio-economic characteristics of the socialist
model are welfare for all members of society (goal), public ownership of the means of production (the main means), income generation
solely for labor, planned nature of the economy, centralization of management, command positions of the state in the economy, the
social consumption funds, the limited nature of commodity-money relations and so on. While this refers to the well-being not only
in the form of products and services that are vital (biological) needs of the person.
This would also include public safety and defense, education, culture, conditions of work and rest. Of course, socialism – not
only the economy and social relations. It also implies a certain type of political power, ideology, a high level of spiritually-moral
development of society and another. High moral and spiritual requests should assume that there are higher goals in relation to socio-economic
objectives.
But let's focus now is on the socio-economic aspect of the socialist model. So the erosion of the socialist model began long before
the tragic events of december 1991, when it signed the infamous agreement on the division of the ussr in the bialowieza forest. It
was already the final act of the political order. It is not only the date of death of the ussr, and date of full legalization of
a new socio-economic model, which is called "Capitalism". However, implicitly capitalism germinated in the depths of soviet society
for nearly three decades.
The soviet economy de facto has acquired the traits of a mixed. It combined socialist and capitalist structures. However, some
foreign researchers and politicians said that de facto in the Soviet Union there was a complete restoration of capitalism in the
1960-ies – 1970-ies. The restoration of capitalism was linked to the emergence and development in the bowels of the ussr the so-called
shadow or "Second" economy.
In particular, in the early 1960-ies member of the german communist party willy dickhut began publishing their articles, which
stated that since coming to power in our country n. With. Khrushchev happened (not started, but it happened!) the restoration of
capitalism in the ussr. The shadow economy functioned on the principles different from the socialist. Anyway, she was tied to corruption,
embezzlement of state property, receipt of unearned income, in violation of the laws (or use of "Holes" in the legislation). Not
to be confused with the shadow economy "Informal" economy, which is not contrary to the laws and principles of the socialist system,
but complemented the economy "Official".
First of all, this self-employment – for example, the work of the farmer on the plot or the citizen in his summer cottage. And
in the best of times (under stalin) widely developed the so-called fishing cooperation, which was occupied by production of consumer
goods and services. In the Soviet Union state and party authorities chose to ignore the phenomenon of the shadow economy. No, of
course, the police had uncovered and suppressed various operations in the sphere of the shadow economy. But the leaders of the ussr,
commenting on this kind of history, fobbed off with phrases such as "Exception", "Some shortcomings", "Defects", "Bugs" and the like.
For example, in the early 1960-ies of the then first deputy of the ussr council of ministers anastas mikoyan has identified black
market in the Soviet Union as "A handful of some dirty foam appearing on the surface of our society. "The shadow economy of the ussr:
acincinnati some serious research shadow ("Second") economy in the ussr was conducted until the late 1980-ies. Abroad, such studies
came first. First of all we should mention the work of american sociologist gregory grossman (university of california), which was
called "Destructive independence. The historical role of genuine trends in soviet society".
She became widely known after was published in 1988 in the book "The light at the end of the tunnel" (university of berkeley,
edited by stephen f. Cohen). However, the first article of grossman on this topic appeared in 1977 and was called "The second economy
in the ussr (journal problems of communism, september-october 1977). You can also mention the book emigrated to the United States
, the soviet lawyer konstantin simis "Corruption in the Soviet Union – the secret underground world of soviet capitalism", published
in 1982. The author in the 1970-ies is closely in contact with some shady businessman, a lawyer which he performed at the trials.
However, quantitative assessments of shadow ("Second") economy k. Simes does not. Later appeared the work of american sociologists
and economists of Russian origin Vladimir tremlia and michael alexeev. Since 1985, gregory grossman and Vladimir treml produce periodic
collections of the "Second economy" of the ussr. Releases continued until 1993, only 51 were published a study involving 26 authors.
Many studies represented surveys of families of immigrants from the Soviet Union (a total of 1061 family). To studies have also
used surveys of emigrants from other socialist countries, the official statistics of the ussr, publications in mass media and scientific
journals of the Soviet Union . Despite the differences in some quantitative estimates of the individual authors, these differences
were not fundamental. The differences arose due to the fact that some authors considered "Informal economy", the other – the shadow
economy; however, their definitions of both economies could not match. Here are some results of these studies. 1.
In 1979 the illicit manufacture of wine, beer and other alcoholic beverages, as well as speculative resale of alcoholic beverages
produced in the "First economy", provided the income, equal to 2. 2% of gnp (gross national product). 2. In the late 1970-ies in
the ussr was flourishing black market gasoline. From 33 to 65% of purchases of gasoline in urban areas of the country, individual
owners of cars had petrol sold by drivers of public enterprises and organizations (gasoline were sold at a price below the state).
3. In the soviet hairdresser 'left' incomes exceeded the amounts that customers have paid through cash.
This is just one example of what some state-owned enterprises de facto belonged to the "Second" economy. 4. In 1974 the share
of employment in private and home gardens accounted for almost a third of the total working time in agriculture. And this was almost
10% of the total working time in the soviet economy. 5. In the 1970-ies, about a quarter of agricultural products produced on private
plots, much of it was directed at kolkhoz markets. 6.
In the late 1970's, around 30% of all income of the urban population was obtained through various types of private activity –
both legal and illegal. 7. By the end of 1970-ies the proportion of people employed in the "Second economy", reached 10-12% of the
total workforce in the ussr. At the end of 1980-ies there appeared a number of works on the shadow and "Second" economy in the ussr.
First and foremost is the publication of the soviet economist tatyana results and director of the research institute of the state
planning commission valery rutgajzer. Here is the data from the t.
The results of the "Shadow economy of the ussr". The annual value of illegally produced goods and services in the early 1960-ies
amounted to about 5 billion rubles, and in the end of 1980-ies was already reached 90 billion rubles. At current prices, the gnp
of the ussr was (in billions of rubles): in 1960 – 195; in 1990, 701. Thus, the economy of the ussr for thirty years has increased
3. 6 times, and the shadow economy – 14 times.
If in 1960 the shadow economy relative to official gdp was 3. 4%, while by 1988 this figure rose to 20%. However, in 1990 it was
equal to 12. 5%. This decline was due to changes in soviet legislation, which transferred to discharge a legal a range of economic
activities, which were previously considered illegal. The number of employed in the shadow economy, estimated to be the results,
in the beginning of 1960-ies was 6 million people, and in 1974 their number increased to 17-20 million people (6-7% of the population).
In 1989, the such shadow was already 30 million people, or 12% of the population of the ussr. The threats and consequences of the
development of the shadow economy in sssri american and soviet researchers pay attention to some features of the shadow economy and
its impact on the overall situation in the Soviet Union .
He made a fortune in the chaotic world of 1990s Russian capitalism, then took a place at
the heart of the British establishment
Striding the halls of an English stately home, dressed in full costume as Victorian
prime minister Benjamin Disraeli, Len Blavatnik was celebrating his 60th birthday.
Grammy-winner Bruno Mars sang. Guests -- some in frock coats, others dressed as Leo Tolstoy,
Rasputin or Chinese emissaries -- mixed with rock stars, celebrities and business
tycoons.
Themed as an imaginary conference chaired by Disraeli, the June 2017 party was
emblematic of Blavatnik's extraordinary rise from his birth in Soviet Ukraine to one of the
UK's richest people
####
A lot more at the link.
So why did Abramovic get the bum rush? He's kept his head down, not made waves, behaved
himself and spent a lot of money in the UK (Chelsea FC) which the above FT article sniffs at
as unworthy (snobs), but the Brit government still stiffed his visa and he hasn't been back
to the UK even though he now also has I-sraeli citizenship that affords him visa-free entry
to the UK. Is it because the UK and others need some oligarchs on the side just in case their
dream comes true and they need to parachute in some reliable Russians? That wouldn't
surprise me. Government in waiting. Maybe Abramovic said "No." Wrong answer.
Леонид
Валентинович
Блаватник (Сэр
Леонард
Блаватник;
англ. Sir Leonard Blavatnik или Len Blavatnik;
род. 14 июня 1957,
Одесса --
американский и
британский
предприниматель
и промышленник
еврейского
происхождения.
В 2015 году
возглавил
список
богатейших
людей
Великобритании
Russian Wiki
Leonid Valentinovich Blavatnik (Sir Leonard Blavatnik or Len Blavatnik); born 14 June
1957, Odessa – American and British entrepreneur and industrialist of Jewish ancestry.
In 2015, headed a list of the richest people in Great Britain
Jake
says: Next New Comment May 22, 2019 at 3:27 pm
GMT 100 Words This is good writing: "The KGB plotters of 1991 had thought that
post-Communist Russia would be treated by the West like the prodigal son, with a fattened calf
being slaughtered for the welcome feast. To their disappointment, the stupid bastards
discovered that their country was to play the part of the fattened calf at the feast, and they
were turned from unseen rulers into billionaires' bodyguards.
"... Privatization typically enriches the politically connected few who secure lucrative rents by sacrificing the national or public interest for private profit, even when privatization may not seem to benefit them. ..."
"... For example, following Russian voucher privatization and other Western recommended reforms, for which there was a limited domestic constituency then, within three years (1992-1994), the Russian economy had collapsed by half, and adult male life expectancy fell by six years. It was the greatest such recorded catastrophe in the last six millennia of recorded human history. ..."
"... Soon, a couple of dozen young Russian oligarchs had taken over the commanding heights of the Russian economy; many then monetized their gains and invested abroad, migrating to follow their new wealth. Much of this was celebrated by the Western media as economic progress. ..."
<img
src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />
Has
Privatization Benefitted the Public? Posted on April 7,
2019 by Jerri-Lynn Scofield Jerri-Lynn
here. Another succinct post by Jomo Kwame Sundaram that makes clear the "benefits" of
privatization are not evenly distributed, and in fact, typically, "many are even worse off"
when the government chooses to transfer ownership of the family silver.
Note that SOE is the acronym for state owned enterprise.
For those interested in the topic, see also another short post by the same author from last
September, debunking other arguments to promote the privatization fairy, Revisiting
Privatization's Claims .
By Jomo Kwame Sundaram, former UN Assistant Secretary General for Economic Development.
Originally published at Inter Press
Service
In most cases of privatization, some outcomes benefit some, which serves to legitimize the
change. Nevertheless, overall net welfare improvements are the exception, not the rule.
Never is everyone better off. Rather, some are better off, while others are not, and
typically, many are even worse off. The partial gains are typically high, or even negated by
overall costs, which may be diffuse, and less directly felt by losers.
Privatized Monopoly Powers
Since many SOEs are public monopolies, privatization has typically transformed them into
private monopolies. In turn, abuse of such market monopoly power enables more rents and
corporate profits.
As corporate profits are the private sector's yardstick of success, privatized monopolies
are likely to abuse their market power to maximize rents for themselves. Thus, privatization
tends to burden the public, e.g., if charges are raised.
In most cases, privatization has not closed the governments' fiscal deficits, and may even
worsen budgetary problems. Privatization may worsen the fiscal situation due to loss of revenue
from privatized SOEs, or tax evasion by the new privatized entity.
Options for cross-subsidization, e.g., to broaden coverage are reduced as the government is
usually left with unprofitable activities while the potentially profitable is acquired by the
private sector. Thus, governments are often forced to cut essential public services.
In most cases, profitable SOEs were privatized as prospective private owners are driven to
maximize profits. Fiscal deficits have often been exacerbated as new private owners use
creative accounting to avoid tax, secure tax credits and subsidies, and maximize retained
earnings.
Meanwhile, governments lose vital revenue sources due to privatization if SOEs are
profitable, and are often obliged to subsidize privatized monopolies to ensure the poor and
underserved still have access to the privatized utilities or services.
Privatization Burdens Many
Privatization burdens the public when charges or fees are not reduced, or when the services
provided are significantly reduced. Thus, privatization often burdens the public in different
ways, depending on how market power is exercised or abused.
Often, instead of trying to provide a public good to all, many are excluded because it is
not considered commercially viable or economic to serve them. Consequently, privatization may
worsen overall enterprise performance. 'Value for money' may go down despite ostensible
improvements used to justify higher user charges.
SOEs are widely presumed to be more likely to be inefficient. The most profitable and
potentially profitable are typically the first and most likely to be privatized. This leaves
the rest of the public sector even less profitable, and thus considered more inefficient, in
turn justifying further privatizations.
Efficiency Elusive
It is often argued that privatization is needed as the government is inherently inefficient
and does not know how to run enterprises well. Incredibly, the government is expected to
subsidize privatized SOEs, which are presumed to be more efficient, in order to fulfil its
obligations to the citizenry.
Such obligations may not involve direct payments or transfers, but rather, lucrative
concessions to the privatized SOE. Thus, they may well make far more from these additional
concessions than the actual cost of fulfilling government obligations.
Thus, privatization of profitable enterprises or segments not only perpetuates exclusion of
the deserving, but also worsens overall public sector performance now encumbered with remaining
unprofitable obligations.
One consequence is poorer public sector performance, contributing to what appears to be a
self-fulfilling prophecy. To make matters worse, the public sector is then stuck with financing
the unprofitable, thus seemingly supporting to the privatization prophecy.
Benefits Accrue to Relatively Few
Privatization typically enriches the politically connected few who secure lucrative rents by
sacrificing the national or public interest for private profit, even when privatization may not
seem to benefit them.
Privatization in many developing and transition economies has primarily enriched these few
as the public interest is sacrificed to such powerful private business interests. This has, in
turn, exacerbated corruption, patronage and other related problems.
For example, following Russian voucher privatization and other Western recommended reforms,
for which there was a limited domestic constituency then, within three years (1992-1994), the
Russian economy had collapsed by half, and adult male life expectancy fell by six years. It was
the greatest such recorded catastrophe in the last six millennia of recorded human history.
Soon, a couple of dozen young Russian oligarchs had taken over the commanding heights of the
Russian economy; many then monetized their gains and invested abroad, migrating to follow their
new wealth. Much of this was celebrated by the Western media as economic
progress.
Yes it does. I've now added a sentence to my introduction to make that clear. I noticed
the omission when I was uploading the post, but wasn't sure whether readers would be
confused.
As a rule of thumb, I'd say that any privatisations that require the introduction of
convoluted pseudo-market structures or vast new regulatory bureaucracies or which derive most
of their ongoing income from the public sector are likely to be contrary to the long-term
public interest. In the UK, unfortunately, all these ships sailed a long time ago
After the recent Chicago municipal elections, I wrote up some notes on the reasons for the
discontent. This article by Sundaram explains exactly how these schemes work. Further, you
can apply his criteria of subsidies for the rich, skimming, and disinheriting the middle
class and poor to all of the following instances in Chicago.
If I may–some for instances of how Sundaram's observations turn up in U.S.
cities:
Chicago is the proving grounds for thirty or so years of the Democrats' surrender to
neoliberalism and austerity politics. Let us not forget, brethren and sistren, that Rahm is
the Spawn of Bill + Hill as well as dear friend and advisor of Obama. So there is the work of
Daley to undo and the work of the Clintonians to undo. It will take more than one term for
Lightfoot.
Consider:
–Parking meters and enforcement have been privatized, starving the city of funds and,
more importantly, of its police power.
–Taxes have been privatized in TIFs, where money goes and is never heard from
again.
–There have been attempts to privatize the park system in the form of the Lucas museum
and the current Obama Theme Park imbroglio, involving some fifty acres of park land.
–The school system has been looted and privatized. The Democrats are big fans of
charter schools (right, "Beto"), seeing them as ways to skim money off the middle class and
the poor.
–Fare collection on public transit has been privatized using a system so deliberately
rudimentary and so deliberately corrupt that it cannot tell you at point of service how much
you have paid as fare.
–Boeing was enticed to Chicago with tax breaks. Yes, that Boeing, the one that now
deliberately puts bad software in your airplane.
–Property tax assessment has been an opaque system and source of skimming for
lawyers.
–Zoning: Eddie Burke, pond scum, is just the top layer of pollution.
–And as we have made our descent, all of these economic dogmata have been enforced by
petty harassment of the citizenry (endless tickets) and an ever-brutal police force.
And yet: The current Republican Party also supports all of these policies, so let's not
pretend that a bunch of Mitch McConnell lookalikes are headed to Chicago to reform it.
Providing professional services i.e. architecture, engineering, etc. for a public entity,
local or federal, does not yield unreasonable profits. Typically, the public agencies have
their own staff to monitor and cost control a project. The professional services provided to
private developers yields far more profit- oftentimes twice the profits associated with
public agency work. Most professional services companies will transition their work to the
public agencies during a recession.
At any rate, especially in Illinois, privatizing the work to avoid pension liabilities is
no longer a choice. Michael Madigan pension promises will require the public to maintain a
public service budget with no staff to fill potholes. Essentially, these are the no work jobs
made popular by the Soprano crew twenty years ago.
Discussion of the downside of the privatization of public services is merely an
oscillation from discussing the weather, the Bears or any other kitchen table discussion
– nothing more than pleasant small talk to pass the time.
Privatization, at any cost, is no longer a choice. We have abused the pension system and
now the public must pay for private companies to provide the most basic services.
The question is, what can one do to help arrest this wholesale theft of public resources
and their expropriation into the hands of well connected. " Public", as in, it is the working
public over the last 100 or 200 years that created (or paid for), the electricity grid, or
public schools, or entire armed or police forces
I keep thinking that perhaps an Act could or should be introduced here in UK (same for the
States, i suppose), which should ensure that all politicians that enable any type of
privatisation of public resources or PFI arrangement (yes that old chesnut), should be made
personally responsible for the results therof.
And any losses to the public accidentally or "accidentally" occasioned by such
commandeering over public resources, to be treated like deliberate misappropriation by the
said public officials.
With the financial and custodial penalties as may be appropriate.
Anybody out there with similar thoughts or should i really try harder and give up on
drugs?
Michael Hudson, to his immense credit, explains the pernicious effects of privatization of
common goods repeatedly throughout his work, and demonstrates that it has been with us at
least as long as the ancient practice of land alienation and rural usury.
Natural monopolies ought to be nationalised, full stop.
I support public ownership of natural monopolies, however it would be helpful if these
pieces contained data, case studies or footnoted entries providing some empirical evidence of
the author's thesis.
This article comes at a time when the clarion call for privatizing Eskom, SA's electricity
utility, is hitting deafening levels. To the private sector, efficiency = maximizing profits
by making the "bloated" enterprise lean (aka cutting the workforce) and quite literally mean
(aka cutting services to "unprofitable" segments of the market, iow, the poor and
vulnerable). When profits soar because the holy grail of efficiency is achieved, the
mainstream business press brings out the champagne and toasts this "success" as proof that
the previously "moribund" (they always exaggerate the state of things) monopolistic monolith
has been given a new lease on life by privatizing it and the template is set for rescuing
other "ailing" SOEs.
The drawbacks are never laid out as cleary as they are in this article and the plight of
those worst affected, whether laid-off workers or those whose services have been cut, never
makes it into the headlines.
And then there is prison privatization where the burden of operation and maintaining the
institution should clearly be on the public so as to be constant reminder of the burden,
among others reasons. The motivations by private prison operators to reduce services and
costs out of site of the pesky prying eyes of the public are manifold.
Privatization is a great way to avoid having user fees wasted by providing services, and
instead put to better use funding the re-election campaigns of politicians supporting
privatization. Plus, it provides much-needed consulting fees for former politicians as well
as job-creating 7-figure salaries for the CEOs,
(/snark, if you couldn't tell)
On a side note, the Dilbert comic strip is written about private industry ,
There was a rudimentary plan
put forward last June that recommended some pretty substantial privatizations of U.S.
government assets and services which include:
-Privatizing the US Post Office ( through an Initial Public Offering or outright sale to a
private entity ).
-Sell off U.S. government owned electricity transmission lines ( U.S. government owns 14% of
this nations power transmission lines through TVA, Southwestern Power Administration, Western
Area Power Administration, and Bonneville Power Administration ).
-Spin-off the Federal Aviation Administrations air traffic control operations into a private
nonprofit entity.
-Spin-off the Department of Transportations operations of the Saint Lawrence Seaways Locks
and Channels into a private non-profit entity.
-End the federal conservatorship of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, then regulate a new system of
private guarantors for their MBS securities.
At heart, the problem with privatization is that marketing to a government-employed
purchaser or "purchase influencer" is ridiculously cheap, due to their poor accountability
strictures.
This is abetted by the Katamari Damacy process (self-accretionary tendency) of money and
power.
In Oz the electricity grids were privatized as they would be cheaper that way – or
so people were told. Instead, the cost of electricity has risen sharply over the years to the
point that it is effecting elections on both the State and Federal level as the price hikes
are so controversial. A problem is that those companies have to pay back the loans used to
buy the public electricity grids and as well, the senior management award themselves sky-high
wages because they are totally worth it. These are factors that were never present when it
was publicly owned. And just to put the boot in, those very same companies have been
'gold-plating' the electricity grid for their gain-
Meanwhile, whatever money the governments made selling their electricity companies has
been long spent on white elephants or buying themselves re-elections by giving out goodies to
voters.
buying themselves re-elections by giving out goodies to voters.
I don't reside in the states, so I don't see much of the detail of daily life. What are
these "goodies" of which you speak? In what I am able to read on the internet, people aren't
being given goodies any more. At least the old-time politicians handed out jobs, and turkeys
at Christmas. The current crop do hand out jobs to their kids and immediate family, but not
so much to anyone else.
Долгие годы я
жил в ощущении
правильности
произошедшего
в 1991 и 1993 годах. Хотя,
конечно, у меня
были серьезные
внутренние
разногласия с
той толпой,
которая
носилась по
Москве и ломала
памятники. Но я
это в себе как-то
давил. В 1993 году
мне казалось
правильным, что
танк стреляет
по дому с
вооруженными
людьми. Я тоже
хотел
раздавить
гадину, потому
что гадина
представлялась
мне гадиной. Я
был юн и еще не
понимал, что
демократия -- это
всегда толпа,
ломающая
памятники. И что
любой
парламент -- это
всегда гадина.
Но это не значит,
что его надо из
танков
расстреливать.
Но даже когда
ко мне пришло
понимание этих
двух
постулатов, я
все равно
продолжал
смеяться над
мифологией
защитников
гадины. О
массовых
расстрелах на
стадионе
"Красная Пресня".
И, конечно, о
таинственных
снайперах,
которые
стреляли по
простым
прохожим. Зачем
снайперам
стрелять по
простым
прохожим? Какой
в этом военный
тактический
смысл? Однако
время всё
ставит по своим
местам.
Снайперы,
стреляющие по
простым
прохожим нужны
для того же, для
чего нужны две
бочки хлора. Для
провокации.
А где же еще мы
видели
снайперов,
стрелявших по
людям для
провокации
насилия?
Правильно, мы
видели их в
Киеве на
Майдане. И вот
когда у тебя в
голове вдруг
складывается
Майдан и 1993 год, то
становится
неприятно.
Потому что ты
начинаешь
понимать
природу
произошедшего
в 1993 году. Это был
такой же Майдан.
И он, как и в
Киеве, победил.
Раздавили
гадину. Америка,
матушка-спасительница,
помогла. И в 1993м. И в
2014. Только почему
же ты, сволочь,
тогда был на
одной стороне, а
потом -- на
другой? А потому
что дурак был.
А когда
картинка
сложилась,
сразу же много
стало понятнее.
И весь тот ад
девяностых,
который был так
похож на то, что
ныне
происходит на
Украине. Война
против
собственных
граждан
негодной,
разворованной
армией. Полный
крах экономики,
зависимость от
денег МВФ,
выделяемых по
милостивому
разрешению США.
Вооруженные
люди, убивающие
друг друга в
центрах
городов.
Эта мысль
может
показаться
диковатой, но
вот, наконец, у
нее случилось
документальное
подтверждение.
В США
опубликованы
расшифровки
телефонных
разговоров
президента
Билла Клинтона.
В том числе и с
президентом
Борисом
Ельциным. В
которых Ельцин
пугает
Клинтона
коммунистами,
жалуется, что
коммунисты,
если победят,
могут отобрать
Крым (!). И просит
два с половиной
миллиарда
долларов на
выборы. После
чего МВФ
выделяет
России займ, а в
Москве
приезжают
американские
политические
консультанты. И
выборы 1996 года
превращаются в
Оранжевую
революцию --
только вместо
концертов на
Майдане тур
"Голосуй или
проиграешь". А в
результате всё
равно
сфальсифицированные
результаты.
Методы и те же,
разве что
последовательность
разная.
И вот с высоты
этого
понимания
хорошо бы
оглядеть
перспективы. В
России
случился Путин,
она очистилась
от скверны и
таки приняла
вернувшийся
Крым. Значит ли
это, что
подобный исход
событий
возможен на
Украине?
Интересная
могла бы
получиться
экстраполяция:
Порошенко
находит
какого-то
малоизвестного
человека,
выходца из СБУ,
которого
назначает
преемником.
Этот человек
выгоняет
американцев,
восстанавливает
экономику,
мирится с
Донбассом,
равноудаляет
старых
олигархов и
возвращает
Крым? Сценарий,
как вы
понимаете,
фантастический.
И дело даже не в
Крыме, который
никуда
"возвращаться"
не собирается,
потому что он
уже вернулся
домой. Дело в
том, что Ельцин
вовсе не хотел,
чтобы Путин
сделал всё то,
что он сделал. Он
хотел просто
гарантий
безопасности
для себя и семьи.
И то, что Путин
оказался не тем,
кем его
представлял
себе Ельцин --
это счастливая
случайность.
Божий промысел,
если хотите. Pussy Riot
просили
Богородицу,
чтобы она
забрала Путина,
а устами
художника
всегда говорит
Бог. То есть,
прося
Богородицу,
чтобы она
забрала Путина,
Pussy Riot тем самым (и
сами того не
понимая)
говорили нам,
что Богородица
Путина нам дала.
Это шутка,
конечно.
Впрочем, как мне
кажется,
довольно
изящная.
Порошенко,
разумеется,
тоже ничего из
того, что сделал
Путин, не хочет.
Он хочет или
остаться у
власти (что
мирным путем
невозможно) или
же обеспечить
себе
безопасность.
Кто именно мог
бы обеспечить
ему такую
безопасность
(то есть -- быть
потенциальным
украинским
Путиным) отсюда
пока никак не
просматривается.
Но вопрос ведь
не в этом. Вопрос
в том, будет ли к
этому иметь
отношение
Богородица.
А также в том,
что нам теперь
совсем не с руки
смеяться над
нынешней
Украиной и ее
выбором. Мы с
вами вышли из
такого же
дерьма. Природа
современного
русского
государства
такая же --
поддержанный
американцами
майдан. И хорошо
бы никогда об
этом не
забывать. И
соответственно
относиться к
тем, кто тоскует
по тем
временам.
А лично мне
достаточно
того, что
Богородица не
послушала Pussy Riot. И
слава богу. RT
"... The purpose is very simple: to create the perception that the government of Russia still somehow controls or manipulates the US government and thus gains some undeserved improvements in relations with the U.S. Once such perception is created, people will demand that relations with Russia are worsened to return them to a "fair" level. While in reality these relations have been systematically destroyed by the Western establishment (CFR) for many years. ..."
"... It's a typical inversion to hide the hybrid war of the Western establishment against Russian people. Yes, Russian people. Not Putin, not Russian Army, not Russian intelligence services, but Russian people. Russians are not to be allowed to have any kind of industries, nor should they be allowed to know their true history, nor should they possess so much land. ..."
"... Russians should work in coal mines for a dollar a day, while their wives work as prostitutes in Europe. That's the maximum level of development that the Western establishment would allow Russians to have (see Ukraine for a demo version). Why? Because Russians are subhumans. ..."
"... The end goal of the Western establishment is a complete military, economic, psychological, and spiritual destruction of Russia, secession of national republics (even though in some of them up to 50% of population are Russians, but this will be ignored, as it has been in former Soviet republics), then, finally, dismemberment of what remains of Russia into separate states warring with each other. ..."
"... The very concept of Russian nation should disappear. Siberians will call their language "Siberian", Muscovites will call their language "Moscovian", Pomorians will call their language "Pomorian", etc. The U.S. Department of State will, of course, endorse such terminology, just like they endorse the term "Montenegrian language", even though it's the same Serbo-Croatian language with the same Cyrillic writing system. ..."
The purpose is very simple: to create the perception that the government of Russia still somehow controls or manipulates
the US government and thus gains some undeserved improvements in relations with the U.S. Once such perception is created, people
will demand that relations with Russia are worsened to return them to a "fair" level. While in reality these relations have been
systematically destroyed by the Western establishment (CFR) for many years.
It's a typical inversion to hide the hybrid war of the Western establishment against Russian people. Yes, Russian people.
Not Putin, not Russian Army, not Russian intelligence services, but Russian people. Russians are not to be allowed to have any
kind of industries, nor should they be allowed to know their true history, nor should they possess so much land.
Russians should work in coal mines for a dollar a day, while their wives work as prostitutes in Europe. That's the maximum
level of development that the Western establishment would allow Russians to have (see Ukraine for a demo version). Why? Because
Russians are subhumans.
Whatever they do, it's always wrong, bad, oppressive, etc. Russians are bad because they're bad. They must be "taught a lesson",
"put into their place". It would, of course, be beneficial and highly profitable for Europeans to break with Anglo-Saxons and
to live in peace and harmony with Russia, but Europeans simply can not overcome their racism towards Russians. The young Europeans
are just as racist, with their incessant memes about "squatting Russians in tracksuits", "drunken Russians", etc., as if there's
nothing else that is notable about a country of 147 million people.
The end goal of the Western establishment is a complete military, economic, psychological, and spiritual destruction of
Russia, secession of national republics (even though in some of them up to 50% of population are Russians, but this will be ignored,
as it has been in former Soviet republics), then, finally, dismemberment of what remains of Russia into separate states warring
with each other.
The very concept of Russian nation should disappear. Siberians will call their language "Siberian", Muscovites will call
their language "Moscovian", Pomorians will call their language "Pomorian", etc. The U.S. Department of State will, of course,
endorse such terminology, just like they endorse the term "Montenegrian language", even though it's the same Serbo-Croatian language
with the same Cyrillic writing system.
Hmmmm I think IMHO that any analogies with Gorbachev are misplaced and superficial. I
don't think Gorbachev knew what he was doing and was profoundly naive (or worse, but that's
the best that can be said about him, let's leave it at that – and I admired him as a
teen behind the iron curtain).
I think Sanders knows what he's doing and is clear eyed about who he's dealing with in
terms of system and people -- unlike Gorbachev.
As for people in the USSR giving up – I don't think they got anything of what they
really wanted, and I don't think anyone really asked them. So they never had a chance to give
up anything. They were simply led along a short hopeful path – and then summarily and
mercilessly crushed.
Sanders is a healthy thing for this country and the Dem party. Unlike Gorbachev, he's
ushering in healthy forces. Let the chips fall where they may.
Forward, Comrades (Russian: Вперед,
товарищи; Chinese:
前进，达瓦里希; pinyin: Qiánjìn,
dáwǎlǐxī; literally: "Advance, tovarish") is a 2013 Chinese animated
short film by Wang Liyin of the Beijing Film Academy. The film focuses on the fall of the
Soviet Union as its main theme, told from the perspective of a young girl. As an original net
animation with a strong political backdrop, the film has triggered strong reactions from
various audiences.
"... But while China has succeeded in conserving a degree of control on capital outflows and private accumulation, the characteristic of Putin's Russia is an unbounded drift into kleptocracy. Between 1993 and 2018, Russia had massive trade surpluses: approximately 10% of GDP per annum on average for 25 years, or a total in the rage of 250% of GDP (two and a half years of national production). In principle that should have enabled the accumulation of the equivalent in financial reserves. This is almost the size of the sovereign public fund accumulated by Norway under the watchful gaze of the voters. The official Russian reserves are ten times lower – barely 25% of GDP. ..."
One would have to be incredibly naive on the order of say a 3 year old or maybe Forrest
Gump to believe Putin isn't a very wealthy man who will never want for anything as long as he
has billionaire cronies indebted to him politically in one way or the other.
Of course, some people must cling to their illusions, er I mean their idealism, of others
no matter what. Dog knows why.
More generally, the Soviet disaster led to the abandon of any ambition of redistribution.
Since 2001, income tax is 13%, whether your income be 1,000 roubles or 100 billion roubles.
Even Reagan and Trump have not gone as far in the destruction of progressive taxation.
There is no tax on inheritance in Russia, nor in the People's Republic of China. If you
want to pass on your fortune in peace in Asia, it is better to die in the ex-Communist
countries and definitely not in the capitalist countries such as Taiwan, South Korea or
Japan where the tax rate on inheritance on the highest estates has just risen from 50% to
55%.
But while China has succeeded in conserving a degree of control on capital outflows and
private accumulation, the characteristic of Putin's Russia is an unbounded drift into
kleptocracy. Between 1993 and 2018, Russia had massive trade surpluses: approximately 10%
of GDP per annum on average for 25 years, or a total in the rage of 250% of GDP (two and a
half years of national production). In principle that should have enabled the accumulation
of the equivalent in financial reserves. This is almost the size of the sovereign public
fund accumulated by Norway under the watchful gaze of the voters. The official Russian
reserves are ten times lower – barely 25% of GDP.
Where has the money gone? According to our estimates, the offshore assets alone held by
wealthy Russians exceed one year of GDP, or the equivalent of the entirety of the official
financial assets held by Russian households. In other words, the natural wealth of the
country, (which, let it be said in passing, would have done better to remain in the ground
to limit global warming) has been massively exported abroad to sustain opaque structures
enabling a minority to hold huge Russian and international financial assets. These rich
Russians live between London, Monaco and Moscow: some have never left Russia and control
their country via offshore entities. Numerous intermediaries and Western firms have also
recouped large crumbs on the way and continue to do so today in sport and the media
(sometimes this is referred to as philanthropy). The extent of the misappropriation of
funds has no equal in history.
Well, there can be no doubt Amerikkkans, Euros, Asians, Middle Easterners, grifters,
entrepreneurs, lumpen proles and many others of all persuasions participated in the sacking
of Russia's national wealth since the fall of the USSR. Probably even a few Canadiens took
part. Lol.
Capitalust feeding frenzies of this magnitude are ugly sights to behold, like the
Washington DC pig trough on a daily basis.
Russia's is truly a global phenomenon to be sure.
Or maybe a "globalist" phenomenon is a better way to putin words.
And of course, the chart at the top of Piketty's post is most interesting too....it shows
the US equally as unequal as Russia. I'm not letting the US off the hook here in any way
shape or form. But this thread is about Russia and worse exposits a demented sort of idealism
by many posters about the country and its Dear Leader that is unwarranted, IMHO. Not you of
course.
The heinous accumulation of Russian wealth is intertwined...leaving Russia and shunted
through tax havens, laundered, anonymised and ending up invested in the West....not back home
in Mother Russia....where it could lead to more economic development and opportunities for
the non-oligarchs....instead of more growth in the US and West, where agin most ends up in
the pockets of our own oligarchs, one Donald Trump among them.
Today I participated in a nice web-based program started by the Central Bank of Russia (it
will be posted soon). An economist is being interviewed by another, and then the one who has
been interviewed becomes in his/her turn the interviewer of yet a third one. My friend Shlomo
Weber, the head of the New School of Economics interviewed me, and then I interviewed
Professor Natalya Zubarevich, from the Lomonosov Moscow State University and a noted scholar
of Russian regional economics.
Just a couple of days ago Natalia gave a very well-received talk at the Gaidar Forum in
Moscow on (what one might call) "unhealthy convergence" of Russian regions. In fact, Natalia
shows that most recently regional per capita GDPs have started a mild convergence, but that
this is due first to low growth rate of most of them and the economy as a whole, and to the
redistribution mechanism (mostly of the oil rent) between the regions. A healthy convergence,
Natalia says, would be the one where economic activity, and especially small and medium size
private businesses, were much more equally distributed across some ninety subjects of the
Russian Federation. She also had very interesting insights into the excessive
"verticalization" of economic power and decision-making in Russia, and the economic growth of
Moscow (much faster than of any other part of Russia) driven by centralization of that power,
and concentration of large state-owned or state-influenced enterprises as well as bureaucracy
in Moscow.
What most attracted my attention during Natalia's presentation at the Gaidar Forum was her
description of the current period of low growth rates in Russia as zastoi, or stagnation.
Now, zastoi has a very special political meaning in Russian because it was a disparaging term
used in the Gorbachev era, and by Gorbachev himself, to define the Brezhnevite period of
declining growth rates, lack of development perspectives, unchanging bureaucracy, and general
demoralization and malaise.
But I asked Natalia the following question. Looking over the past 150 years of Russian
history (and I think it is hard to go further back), were not really the best periods for
ordinary people exactly the periods of zastoi: incomes rose by little for sure, but the state
repression was weak, there were no wars, and probably if you look at violent deaths per
capita per year, the lowest number of people died precisely during the periods of zastoi. So
perhaps that zastoi is not so bad.
Natalia said, "I know I lived through the Brezhnevite period. Many people were
demoralized; but I used it to study. I never read so many books and learned so much as then
-- you could do whatever you wanted because your actual job really did not matter much."
(Even art, as I saw in the Tretyakovska Gallery, even if some of these paintings were never
exhibited in the official museums, seems to have done well during the Brezhnevite zastoi. And
as the recent film, which I have not seen, but read the reviews, Leto, appears to indirectly
argue as well.)
The best growth periods, as Natalia said, and as is generally accepted by economic
historians were the 1950s up to about 1963-65, and then the period of the two first Putin's
terms. In both cases, the growth spurs came as a ratchet effect to the previous set of
disasters: in the Khrushchev period, to the apocalypse of the Second World War, in the Putin
period, as a reaction to the Great Depression under Yeltsin during the early transition.
So this then made us think a bit back into the past (say, going back to 1905) and put
forward the following hypothesis: that Russian longer-term economic growth is cyclical. The
cycle has three components. First a period of utter turbulence, disorder, war, and huge loss
of income (and in many cases of life as well), followed by a decade or so of efflorescence,
recovery and growth, and finally by the period of "calcification" of whatever (or whoever)
that worked in that second period -- thus producing the zastoi or stagnation.
I do not know if this is something specific to the Russian economic history. It made me
think of Naipaul's observation on successful and unsuccessful countries. The history of the
former consists of a number of challenges and setbacks indeed, but certain things are solved
forever, and then new challenges appear. Take the United States: the Indian challenge and
then the independence from Britain were not easy to overcome/acquire, but eventually, they
were and they never came back; then the Civil War and the Emancipation; then the Great
Society etc. But unsuccessful countries, according to Naipaul (and he had, I think, Argentina
in mind) always stay within the circular history. The same or similar events keep on
repeating themselves forever without any upward trend -- and no single challenge is forever
overcome. In each following cycle everything simply repeats itself.
The challenges for Russia today is, I think, to break this cycle.
"... A conversation in the radio studio "Komsomolskaya Pravda" with the Hero of the Soviet Union, the first and the last vice-president of Russia, Alexander Rutskoi and the former head of the President's Security Service (by definition, the closest person to Yeltsin's body), Alexander Korzhakov. ..."
"... (of the Communist Party – author's note) ..."
"... – If I understand it, it was then when you collected "11 suitcases of compromising evidence" against Yeltsin's team? Which also played a role in the confrontation. ..."
"... . About 30 staff members of the CIA worked under the guise of consultants with reformers in the government. And much more. And these were imaginary auctions, state bonds, what was the way they all were thought out? This process was led by staff members of the CIA, who worked in the government of the Russian Federation. ..."
"... I repeatedly asked Yeltsin: is it possible the work of foreign intelligence officers in the administration of the US President? He: Alexander Ivanovich, are you accidentally drunk? – No. I did not drink. I'm just asking you this question. – He: Of course not. – Why do we have 30 employees (of CIA)? And admitted them to top secret information? Where do we go? They are conducting these boys, who do not understand what they are doing, they get up these ugliness. And what will be the results? ..."
"... 30 staff members of the CIA worked in the government. They led the imaginary auctions, government bonds, were admitted to the top secret information. ..."
"... – And what happened to the words about Nechaev? ..."
"... – Listen, let's be honest. You were with Yeltsin in 1991 on one side of the barricades. You saw him, and thats why in the 1993 did not believe that he would go for blood, for assault. Was it so? ..."
"... It was later learned that Gorbachev had created the State Emergency Committee in March 1991, this was his initiative. He went to Foros to absolve himself of responsibility. ..."
"... Once again, when Yeltsin was going to hide in the US embassy in 1991, I stopped him, I said: Boris Nikolayevich, you can not do this, you are the head of Russia, how are you going to escape, let me fly to Foros. So Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov and I flew to Foros to take Gorbachev out of there and bring him back to his place. ..."
"... But in 1993, everything was planned differently. Here is the Maydan in Kiev – this is one in one repetition, a little under another sauce, really. But the conductors were from the same address. All these orders came from Washington. Because the tele-shooting was done, the operators were at such profitable points to completely shoot this massacre. They were seated in advance. And when the "Alpha" (Special Force unit) refuses to storm the building, they kill their fighter Sergeev, sniper kills him in the back, to provoke "Alpha". ..."
"... The Maidan in Kiev is one in one repetition of events in Moscow in 1993. But the conductors were from one place – from Washington. The operators were placed in advance so as to completely shoot this massacre. And when "Alpha" refuses to storm the building, the sniper kills their fighter Sergeev to provoke "Alpha". ..."
"... – And what did happen with those closets in which there was compromising material? ..."
"... – The situation was such that I was put to Lefortovo (detention unit for state security – author's note) ..."
"... – Korzhakov would better tell how at Vnukovo airport he met the snipers, who flew not from our country, how they went to Sofrino and got sniper rifles, how they planted these snipers on the roof and started killing policemen and representatives of the armed forces, gawkers and others. For what? – To provoke this assault. ..."
A conversation in the radio studio "Komsomolskaya Pravda" with the Hero of the Soviet
Union, the first and the last vice-president of Russia, Alexander Rutskoi and the former head
of the President's Security Service (by definition, the closest person to Yeltsin's body),
Alexander Korzhakov.
Twenty-two years ago, Moscow shuddered from the tank volleys, and people all over the
country clung to TV screens, on which Western TV stations broadcasted how Yeltsin's loyal
troops fire at the rebel troops of the Supreme Soviet (Parlament) of Russia. The opposition of
the Armed Forces and the President Yeltsin with his team, on the one hand, and Rutskoi and
Khasbulatov with the deputies, on the other, ended in great blood. Incongruous with the one
that spilled two years earlier, when the Emergency Committee tried to keep the USSR.
This was
the beginning of our conversation in the radio studio "Komsomolskaya Pravda" with the Hero of
the Soviet Union, the first and the last vice-president of Russia, Alexander Vladimirovich
Rutskoi and the former head of the President's Security Service (by definition, the closest
person to Yeltsin's body), Alexander Vasilyevich Korzhakov.
... ... ...
Rutskoy:
– Yeltsin's main argument against the Supreme Council was that it prevented him from
"carrying out reforms." What kind of reforms? – The privatization. I was appointed to
lead the Interdepartmental Commission on Combating Corruption, and I had information about how
it was conducted. Port Nakhodka went in ownership for 100 thousand dollars, Achinsk alumina
plant for 180 thousand, Uralmash, giant, the pride of our country, went to Bendukidze's
property for 500 thousand dollars, not for money but for vouchers. What is this nonsense? After
all, we proposed alternative privatization. First, the service sector. I still, being a member
of the Central Committee (of the Communist Party – author's note) , I was
expelled from the party for factionalism, suggested: why should the state have hairdressers,
tailors, canteens, cafes, restaurants? Let's privatize it, but on a competitive basis. A person
wins a contest, gets this object into management and pays real estate, the cost of this object
to the mortgage. The money goes to the social development fund of the country, which is
subordinated to a collegial body, not to the executive branch, to the Supreme Council. And then
the issues of building schools, hospitals, polyclinics, roads, housing and everything else
would be resolved.
The port of Nakhodka was privatized for 100 thousand dollars, the Achinsk alumina plant for
180 thousand, Uralmash, the giant, the pride of our country, went into the ownership of
Bendukidze for 500 thousand dollars. And it was not money, but vouchers.
This was our most important contradiction with Yeltsin and his team. And imagine how much
money would go into this social fund. And today, the problems in the social sphere would be
solved tenfold at the expense of that has touched.
– If I understand it, it was then when you collected "11 suitcases of compromising
evidence" against Yeltsin's team? Which also played a role in the confrontation.
Rutskoy:
– I figuratively said that those are 11 suitcases. You know, such fireproof large
metal cabinets. And there were documents in them. Not compromising evidence, but documents,
including all of these scams with privatization . About 30 staff members of the CIA worked
under the guise of consultants with reformers in the government. And much more. And these were
imaginary auctions, state bonds, what was the way they all were thought out? This process was
led by staff members of the CIA, who worked in the government of the Russian
Federation.
I repeatedly asked Yeltsin: is it possible the work of foreign intelligence officers in the
administration of the US President? He: Alexander Ivanovich, are you accidentally drunk?
– No. I did not drink. I'm just asking you this question. – He: Of course not.
– Why do we have 30 employees (of CIA)? And admitted them to top secret information?
Where do we go? They are conducting these boys, who do not understand what they are doing, they
get up these ugliness. And what will be the results?
30 staff members of the CIA worked in the government. They led the imaginary auctions,
government bonds, were admitted to the top secret information.
– Alexander Vasilievich, I was 31 years old and I was sitting at that time in
the company of Englishmen, who, going crazy, asked me: "Sasha, is this a movie?" And I answered
them that yes, only documentary and live". And they, even more crazy, bawled: "They must not
shoot the Parliament by tanks "
... ... ...
They figured out Yeltsin but conductors directed the country
Rutskoy:
– Yeltsin's only correct decision for all his being in office was to resign and make
his successor a worthy man who pulled the country out of this humiliating situation.
Incidentally, I have repeatedly told Yeltsin who his security service is, I asked –
remove these guys: both Barsukov and Korzhakov, they will then make you a gift that you will
never wash off. And in 1996, Yeltsin had the intelligence to get rid of these persons.
– You do not like them.
– You know, I always went to Boris Nikolaevich and, before making any public
statements, talked with him. And what did Korzhakov do? He resorted to Yeltsin and sang a song
to him, that I saw a chair under him. If you want I tell an interesting episode. There were a
strike at the automobile plant "ZIL". Boris Nikolayevich, as always, on vacation. It is clear
what a vocation it was. I got a call with the command from the President to go to ZIL and to
work out. I walk along the corridor, towards goes Viktor Palych Barannikov, the Minister of
Security. "Where are you going?" – "To ZIL, there's a strike. I was given a commission
from Boris Nikolayevich." – "Can I go with you?" – "Of course?". We had come,
listened to the workers. I convinced them that we must go back to the machines, stop the strike
and so on. And I allowed myself such a statement: "Boris Nikolayevich will come, I will ask him
to give me an opportunity to attach my guard to Nechayev (he was an economy minister), I will
give him your salary, three thousand rubles. And I'll see how this figure and rascal will
live." Farther. We sit at the one birthday party. Boris Nikolaevich asks me a question. I look,
there is a dictophone at his hands. He said me: Have you got three thousand rubles with you? I
say that I got more. And my brains turn on here. I see the recorder. Yeltsin is on public, and
this is the first circle, ministers, say, basically of the power structure. He turns on the
dictaphone. And there goes this record, but in another form – that Yeltsin will come, and
I'll give him three thousand, I'll attach my guard to him and so on.
They have deleted that part, and it turned out that I would do this to Yeltsin. Silent scene
in the hall. And then Barannikov takes out a dictophone from his pocket. And turns on a full
record, as it was. So, Yeltsin takes his recorder and launches in Korzhakov. Korzhakov bent
down and the tape recorder flew to the wall, smashed to smithereens.
Yeltsin takes the recorder and launches in Korzhakov. Korzhakov bent down and the tape
recorder flew to the wall, smashed to smithereens
– Listen, let's be honest. You were with Yeltsin in 1991 on one side of the
barricades. You saw him, and thats why in the 1993 did not believe that he would go for blood,
for assault. Was it so?
– Well, frankly, I hoped so. In 1991, there was a situation When some information
arrived that the assault was about to begin, Yeltsin immediately got into the car and was going
to leave for the US embassy. It was later learned that Gorbachev had created the State
Emergency Committee back in March of 1991, it was his initiative. He flew to Foros when a cope
started in August to absolve himself of responsibility.
It was later learned that Gorbachev had created the State Emergency Committee in March
1991, this was his initiative. He went to Foros to absolve himself of responsibility.
Once again, when Yeltsin was going to hide in the US embassy in 1991, I stopped him, I
said: Boris Nikolayevich, you can not do this, you are the head of Russia, how are you going to
escape, let me fly to Foros. So Yevgeny Maksimovich Primakov and I flew to Foros to take
Gorbachev out of there and bring him back to his place.
But in 1993, everything was planned differently. Here is the Maydan in Kiev – this is
one in one repetition, a little under another sauce, really. But the conductors were from the
same address. All these orders came from Washington. Because the tele-shooting was done, the
operators were at such profitable points to completely shoot this massacre. They were seated in
advance. And when the "Alpha" (Special Force unit) refuses to storm the building, they kill
their fighter Sergeev, sniper kills him in the back, to provoke "Alpha".
The Maidan in Kiev is one in one repetition of events in Moscow in 1993. But the
conductors were from one place – from Washington. The operators were placed in advance so
as to completely shoot this massacre. And when "Alpha" refuses to storm the building, the
sniper kills their fighter Sergeev to provoke "Alpha".
Neither "Alpha" nor "Vympel" went to the assault.
– But after all "Alpha" and "Vympel" did not go to storm the Kremlin too.
Remember, you ordered the pilots to bomb the Kremlin?
– I did not make such an order.
– You went on the air. I heard it with my ears.
– It was a psychological intimidation for the Kremlin – That is the first. And
the second, what was the way to stop them? I think, at least they will come to their senses,
stop doing it.
– And what did happen with those closets in which there was compromising
material?
– The situation was such that I was put to Lefortovo (detention unit for state
security – author's note) , and the next day, these non-combustible metal cabinets
were cracked and under the direction of Korzhakov these folders were extracted. Where did they
go, these folders, who gave the order to Korzhakov to withdraw everything related to the work
of the interdepartmental commission? No answer.
– There is a feeling that personal scores are not all finished between you
– Korzhakov would better tell how at Vnukovo airport he met the snipers, who flew
not from our country, how they went to Sofrino and got sniper rifles, how they planted these
snipers on the roof and started killing policemen and representatives of the armed forces,
gawkers and others. For what? – To provoke this assault.
Korzhakov would better tell how at Vnukovo airport he met the snipers, who flew not from our
country, how they went to Sofrino and got sniper rifles, how they planted these snipers on the
roof and started killing policemen and representatives of the armed forces, gawkers and others.
For what? – To provoke this assault.
I have nothing to hide. I have published the minutes of my interrogations. And the book
"Bloody Autumn" I wrote, deliberately, without even a hint on any emotions. I took the date,
the documents of the Supreme Council, which were released on that date, the decisions of the
Kremlin on the same date, and made a diary of events. In the end wrote: and now everyone draw
conclusions themselves, who is to blame that the blood of compatriots was spilled, that our
country was simply smeared, that the Soviet Union was destroyed, and people with far from a
decent biography were given the national property of the country. That's what I and many of my
comrades could not agree with, but it happened.
– It happened. And God grant us that we will never do it again.
Why Mikhail Gorbachev was elected General Secretary of the CPSU Central Committee on March 11, 1985? Was there a will of Yuri
Andropov? What was the cause of the sudden death of defense Minister Dmitry Ustinov, who could be the first person in the
country? Was the Secretary General Konstantin Chernenko really poisoned by low-quality fish? And why did Victor Grishin lose his
chance to become the Secretary General of the "master of Moscow"?
Gorbachev was recruited in 1976-77 years when he visited Europe, then eliminate Kulakov and promote the Central Committee
Gorbachev. I am sure that the KGB had their own people recruited by the CIA and pursued a policy of promoting their candidacy
for the post of first person of the USSR.
The stupidest commentaries are here. This rotten system has outlived its usefulness.........and no leader was able to save
her. There is no progressive Communist state in the world and can not be!
Not Gorbachev, so someone else.The USSR was naive and doomed.What, one Gorbachev did everything? Full of vultures sat and
waited for the corpse. My uncle, being the mayor of Tikhvin, in the late 70s, said that the country is doomed because we are
engaged in self-eating.Huge funds went to support the Communist parties around the world.
@Asenovska Tatiana uncle rasskazyval, as mayor....What the University taught me.....
And I , being the senior officer, after 4 wounds the write-off on the ground, the pilot....Past Afghan, and not only.....
I saw our planes to be cur in peaces on orders from Gorbachev.... .And submarines, costing hundreds millions. Payed by people who
save on everyting to secure indepence of the country.
And this creature, was given Nobel Peace Prize for selling everthing to the USA for pennies on the dollar...
The West praised him, and he DESTROYED noth the ARMY AND NAVY and then the USSR ... He gave up our victory in
WWII without and fight's...
After Gorbachov the USA was able to bomb Belgrade, and Iraq, and Livia without any fear for retribution. He should be executed .
And the body of this traitor should be disposed in manure...
And if not Putin, we would be the colony of the USA much like Latin american countries. .And the USA would bomb Syria into stone
age, kill the President and grap all the oil
Only Putin is not GORBACHEV!!!!! And the Big Uncle blew up in Syria and they did not risk thier place to test Russia
anti-aircraft missile systems.
Gorbachev first created a deceptive impression of a young, wise, business-like head of state. In fact, he was a banal traitor
of his country, sold the sovereignty of a great country for perdpnal fortume and villa in Germany. While Wewst grbbed all opur
natiural resourses and large part of iundustry. YELTSIN destroyed completely the economica, and high technolgy ijndurites in
the country, sold everything to oligarchs for pennies. Both Gorbachev and Yeltsin are enemies of the Fatherland .
Gorbachev came to the sinking ship and it was too late to patch the holes in it. The cold war and the arms race sucked the
last currency reserves from the USSR. The Kremlin Party bonzes forgot about the economy, forgot about the people. They
were obsessed with matching the weaponry of the phantom enemy (Americans), and as a result of the cold war the USSR
disintegrated and broke up into 15 independent States.
While we can blame the weakling and traitor Gorbachev, even before him the agriculture was in deep and irreversible
decline. We were forced to buy grad for abroad. After the US has imposed sanctions that have artificially reduced oil prices
to such a low level that game was over. Currency flow from oil sales seizes and there was no alternative then to take
loans from the West.
The Treasury started printed too much rubles, inflation started and with it nationalist feeling that finished off the
country. Add to this Chernobyl disaster. When in Armenia in December 1988 there was the major earthquake, the Kremlin
requested the "decadent West" about the humanitarian aid.
Economy of the Soviet Union fell through the floor and no wonder Gorbachev was tilted towards the West, toward privatization
of the industries.
Of course he was a fool and allowed West to plunder the country, but essentially he have no choice, reforms were needed
and he lost control of them, tried to stage a fake coup to regain control and was deposed as the result. Because he was very
weak, incompetent politician, not fit for such a grave moment in the history of the country, he destroyed the country.
The socialist camp collapsed, and Gorbachov refused to help the socialist countries, it was necessary to save his own ass. He
also finished stupid and unnecessary war in Afghanistan. That was the only positive step he made. And that was too little too
late.
Instead of that asshole, Heydar Aliyev should have been elected by Politburo. The only person who was really able to
pull the country out of the crisis, it was Aliyev G. in any other scenario, the country was doomed to collapse . And
about Gorbachev , you can say so in Russian history , no traitor is worse and higher rank than this pederast!!!, All
pleasant viewing!
And why the interior Ministry, KGB were inactive. As well as Party Control? How could this hump with foreign help and
some special color revolution technology to destroy all the obstacles. How he managed to subdue the Politburo power
structure ( including the axis of the Gromyko-Primakov and Yakovlev) ? As he had no trouble to expel from the Central
Committee able and less corrupted members of the Central Committee (V. Sherbitsky , V. Grishin, G. V. Romanov, G. A.
Aliyev, D, Kuhn...)?
Gorbachev - zero as the head of state, but the soil he has prepared Khrushchev and Brezhnev (Moskva), they let the country
drift, theft, drunkenness, took away people's faith.
А хули дебилам объяснять. Горбачев открыл окно в мир. Живите уроды ,работайте развивайтесь. Но началась элементарная борьба за
власть. Так как в этой стране на протяжении всей истории ничего путного создать не умели. Что с татар взять. Страна не могла
не развалится. Если бы не Беловежское соглашение, крови было бы немерянно. В каждой республики были свои лидеры которые тупо
хотели быть президентами и якобы независимыми.. Кто виноват ,что страна наводнена ублюдками у власти. которые вместо того что
бы создавать могучую страну напичканную всей таблицей Менделеева, начали ее растаскивать.И грабят по сей день, под
руководством Единой россии. Вспомните как все визжали, когда страна стала открываться. Когда народ перестал поклонятся
импортным одноразовым зажигалкам и фантикам от жвачек. Думать надо, прежде чем повторять кремлевские методички. Теперь
катаетесь на Порше кайене, живете в особняках и хотите назад в СССР. Я с вас хуею..
Хорошо помню 1985 год когда вьібрали Горбачева .То у нас в Тернополе наш учитель политекономии тогда говорил нам студентам что
старьіе партейцьі говорят что Горбачев будет изменик .А почему мьі спрашивали .А потому что он не любит наши отечественьіе
костюмьі а любит английские ....Сколько лет прошло а только времья показало кто прав а кто нет .Китай например посмотрел на
нашу историческую ошибку и принимает все необходимьіе мерьі чтобьі подобньіх Горбачевьіх там у руля власти не оказалось ....Все
большие Иудьі бьіли меченьіе ,как и бьіл мечен Горбачев ...Горбачева можна сравнить из Нероном которьій розвалил большое ....
У господина Млечина с аналитикой большие проблемы, а ведь журналист должен знать всё о своём герое. В отношении Горбачёва он
так и не понял, почему Семи- частный отверг кандидатуру Горбачёва. Семичастный знал, что Горбачёв не чист на руку, короче
говоря один из первых советских мафиози в г. Ставрополе по производству алкоголя. Мне лично рассказал об этом брат убитого по
приказу Горбачёва следователя (по пути из Краснодара в Невинномысск), который напал на след этого упыря, но ему была устроена
автомобильная катастрофа, в которой погиб этот следователь. А почему Брежнев убрал Семичастного, потому что Семичастный знал
всю кухню правительственного переворота по смещению Хрущёва, поэтому Брежнев, по словам самого Семичастного убрал его из
Москвы подальше, и в Киеве устроил третьим замом председателя правительства Украинской ССР, выступая Семичастный сказал, я так
и не понял, кем я стал работать, работы практически не было, он просто отсиживался на этой высокой должности до пенсии.
Слушаю и все время одна мысль в голову лезет - как же надо было руководить страной , до какого идиотизма довести ситуацию с
продуктами питания , если академики и композиторы с мировым именем и даже дочь генсека !!!! искали знакомства и расположения
директора магазина !!! . О чем думают люди , пишущие вечные сентенции - "какую страну мы потеряли " - а ведь в провинции было
все гораздо хуже и японцы создали анекдот - "Самая лучшая система снабжения создана в СССР - все товары завозятся в Москву - а
благодарный народ САМ развозит по стране..." Не могла быть жизнеспособной страна при таком маразме..
Лично мне похуй!!! Если сравнить СССР ,где все было нельзя и под запретом, под наблюдением людей в плащах и шляпах,то при
Горбачеве, народ вздохнул глоток свежего,опьяняющего,долгожданного и запретного воздуха из вне... Первые кооперативы, джинсы,
машины, кафе, иномарки,музыка, фильмы!!! Что то новое принес! Нельзя так,было больше жить.. Виновен он во многом,но есть и
плюсы его политики. Предали его, а он предал нас....
Горбачёв был типичный южный дурачок . Они умеют 3 вещи -выглядеть выгодно(лучше чем есть на самом деле ,подмазать где
надо , и болтать .... А ЛЮБОЕ дело которое им поручишь -ОБГАДЯТ . СИСТЕМА СССР была уже слаба тем ,что потеряла
ЖЁСТКОСТЬ и ЗАЩИТУ от Дурака . При Хрущёве -она сработала и дурачка убрали ,при Горби - ЕМУ ДАЛИ РУЛИТЬ ,и ВСЁ
развалилось .
Престарелый Черненко - это плохо. А не престарелые Горбачёв, Яковлев, Шеварднадзе и Лигачёв - это жутко хорошо? Дело,
похоже, не только и не столько в возрасте, сколько в деловых и моральных качествах его носителей. Все члены названнй
компашки реально вредили и реально (и крепко) навредили стране. А ведь престарелыми они отнюдь не были!
Поражаюсь туполобости некоторых "демократов-капиталистов" в комментариях. Почти тридцать лет мы живём в капиталистическом
обществе, имеем полный доступ к любой информации - изучай сколько влезет, называется... И вы за эти тридцать лет так и не
смогли впихнуть в свой мозг информацию о происходящих в мире тенденциях, её систематизировать и сделать из неё вывод - вы
безнадёжны.
Никто из вас не удосужился изучать источники разной направленности по теме капитализма и социализма, вы лишь прочли/услышали
что-то одно, и приняли это за аксиому. Это совершенно ненаучный и не конструктивный подход к изучению проблемы! К сожалению,
некоторые люди просто не способны думать объёмно, для них существует только плоскость или даже прямая линия, что есть признак
ужасно узкого кругозора.
Я увидел в комментариях одно выражение, которое просто повергло меня в шок: "Нет на свете ни одного прогрессивного
коммунистического государства и быть не может!" - здрасте! :D Вы хоть историю-то изучали? То есть СССР не был мировой
сверхдержавой? А, ну да, это же была "страшная, отсталая, грязная и бедная страна-недоразумение, которая возникла по ужасной
ошибке", как же я мог забыть современных историков) А как-же нынешний Китай? Он официально считается экономической
сверхдержавой, кандидатом в мировые сверхдержавы, и темпы развития в нём имеют наивысший показатель на данный момент.
Плоскость и однонаправленность вашего мышления меня просто поразила, вы имеете радикальные взгляды, а радикализм - это всегда
ошибочно. Кто-то написал: "Китай только официально коммунистический, на деле в нём другое устройство!" - ну это просто апогей
идиотизма) Вы разве не понимаете, что человеческие взгляды могут совершенствоваться и изменяться, а система реформироваться? В
Китае именно социалистический строй, который претерпел реформацию, в которой безусловно нуждался. Советский социализм также
нуждался в реформации, и никто не говорит, что он был идеальным социализмом.
Совершенствование системы - это неотъемлемая часть прогресса, и если вы считаете, что социализм может быть только таким, каким
он был в СССР - то вы глубоко ошибаетесь, и совершенно не понимаете значение слова "прогресс". Китай построил такой социализм,
который даёт ему возможность делать поистине чудеса экономики, Китай богатеет и уровень жизни в нём растёт - если это не
прогресс, то что тогда? Также хочу упомянуть КНДР. Да-да, США на неё повесили ярлык "отсталого голодающего тоталитарного
государства", и скорее всего вы, радикальные капиталисты, даже не думали с ними спорить и что-то дополнительно про КНДР
узнавать, что, опять-же, говорит о плоскости и некритичности, я бы даже сказал суеверности вашего мышления. КНДР - страна
очень маленькая, в основном с горной местностью, и природных ресурсов в ней очень мало. "Демократы" из ООН и НАТО обложили
КНДР санкциями со всех сторон, из-за которых она не может развивать внешнюю торговлю, что губительно для маленькой страны с
худым запасом ресурсов. Поддерживать экономику, снабжать людей достатком товаров и в целом держать страну на современном
уровне в условиях торговой изоляции и недостатка ресурсов - это неподъёмная задача для капитализма. Но корейский социализм
умудрился, при всех этих условиях, победить голод, поддерживать бесплатное образование, медицину и т.д., обеспечивать людей
местом жительства, работой и доходом, сохранить суверенность своего государства и идеологию, и, ВНИМАНИЕ,
создать с нуля ядерную бомбу
. Это чудеса, северокорейский строй решает задачи, которые поистине неподъёмные в её
условиях.
Конечно,
в КНДР жесткий тоталитаризм, ведь когда страна изолирована от внешнего мира во всех аспектах, соседние страны настроены
враждебно (а со стороны США вообще идёт угроза прямого вторжения, или даже ядерного удара), со страной ведут жёсткую
идеологическую информационную войну, сохранить существующий строй - задача крайне сложная, и выполнить её можно только при
жёсткой дисциплине и контрпропаганде. Я уважаю Северную Корею, она наглядно показывает, что социализм может творить чудеса.
Конечно же, я вас переубедить не смог, радикальные вы капиталисты, но тем из вас, кои способны хоть немножко думать своей
черепушкой, я, возможно, поселил мысль о том, что социализм - это далеко не только плановая экономика, что он может меняться и
прогрессировать, что именно к нему идут все развитые страны, и что утопический коммунизм - это строй, который мы ещё
представить себе не можем, но который обязательно наступит через многие годы, или столетия прогресса. Избавляйтесь от своих
радикальных взглядов, и старайтесь думать объективно - это очень полезно для кругозора. Спасибо.
По Млечину : хорошо разработанная и осуществлённая операция по устранению конкурентов и внедрению "своего". Возникают вопросы:
кто проводил операцию? Где была организация отвечающая за государственную безопасность (КГБ)? В 2017м демпартия США подняла
вой о,якобы,вмешательстве России в избирательный процесс в США. Кто ответит:было ли вмешательство заграницы в процессы, о
которых поведал Млечин? Если было,то России так же, по образу и подобию, надо поднимать вой. Это серьёзно.Кто ответит?
Горбачев Родину продал, а Ельцин её пропил. Горбачев виноградники повырубал, а Ельцин травил народ не качественным спиртом. В
итоге, если бы не Путин, то развязка была бы давным давно, хотя он тоже не подарок, отдал страну на разграбление олигархам.
Горбачёв типичный номенклатурщик. Послушный, мягкий, ну может и прогибался ради своей высокой карьеры, но наверняка не чаял
президентом стать. Но потом когда всё случилось, стал входить во вкус, то есть жена стала проникаться важностью своего
положения при таком муженьке. А когда пришлось отказаться от власти он НИСКОЛЬКО не скорбел о потерянном кресле и стране. Его
посдили "на мягкую подушечку" и он стал жить поживать в Америке, даже не понимая, что его бездарность, как политика, послужила
развалу СССР. Он не понимает этого и сейчас. А может НЕ желает признавать. Может на смертном одре передумает строить из себя
униженного и оскорблённого и в чём-нибудь признается, хотя бы самому себе. Правда, для этого смелость нужна.
Горбачев не увлекался горячительными напитками???? Ну ну!!! Я родственник председателя крайкома СК в бытность Горбачева...Его
из машин вытаскивали лежа
Нечего горбачева обеливать!Он виноват,да еще как!Будь он трижды проклят!Этот человек не руководитель,разве не видно было из
его речей,что за он скоморох?!Как может шут руководить огромной страной и как вообще можно было доверить легкомысленному
человеку руководить государством,он же не "А ни Б,НИ КУКАРЕКУ"?!Полный идиот!!!!!
Перед развалом Союза ,этот придурок начал обсирать КАЗАКСТАН,я тогда ушёл в запас,и было обидно за академика Кунаева,За
родину мою,а на флоте мы гордились ,когда перед строем кораблей Старший офицер Азаров говорил казакстанцы ,мы едим хлеб из
каз-й муки тушёнка из kz,балык и икра,одеты мы в KZ канадки и свитера из Кызыл орды,А вот атомные ПЛ из казакстанского
титана- и мы были горды за казакстан И вот ОН наносит обсирающий удар?а дальше нам все стало ясно.
Млечный как всегда врет , не умного Горбатого плохо говорящего по русски двигала ЦРУ и как я понимаю сейчас многие советские
парта геносе знали об этом , почему , ???почему они продали все советское в котором жили ???за деньги или разочарование
произошло от этого марксизма и ленинизма, ,,,мы простые люди не когда не узнаем...но я уверен , что Брежнев уже был не
руководитель что Путин ,,,,почему ???что то им мешает , а то и наоборот они и есть гарантия чтоб страна не развивалась ,
Пшеницу покупали в Канаде,Союз изжил себя,,,вина Горбача только в одном,,,первое Крым хохлам не отдавать,,и русских в
Прибалтике не трогать,все это надо было говорить Бушу,,ставить условия
Throughout its existence the Soviet Union was hobbled by the sanctions imposed on it by
the capitalist world. Despite being uniquely qualified, by virtue of its geography and
culture, to survive without being part of the international economy, it had to pay much more,
by being forced to rely on its own resources, than other countries for every advance that it
made economically.
And then it was constantly under threat of coordinated military attack by the richest and
most technically advanced powers, led by the anglo-US empire. Twice it was invaded by massive
international coalitions, in 1918 and 1041. Twice its industrial base and its infrastructure
were reduced to smoking ruins.Twice it had to rebuild, from the ground up without the
assistance of foreign capital.
By contrast the imperial powers, bent on crushing it by economic or military means,
throughout its existence came through the period virtually unscathed-its great rival the US
actually thrived from threw two world wars.
It was this fate which China, under imperial pressure after the 1949 Revolution, was
determined to escape. And so far, since it changed course and played the US and the Soviet
Union off against each other, it has made great strides forward-advances complementing the
enormous gains made after 1949, during which period all the basic indicators of well being,
life expectancy included, rose and a firm base was established for future improvement. And
this at a time when the US used every means in its power, including biological warfare, to
weaken China and reduce its people to starvation.
For example China-well known for its polluted air-is well in advance of North America in its
development of renewable energy sources and seems genuinely committed to replacing fossil
fuels.
Nor is it using its growing strength to engage in military adventures and impose its rule on
others.
It is important when considering China not to repeat the mistakes of some of the
neo-Trotskyist factions whose theory that the Soviet Union was just another capitalist
society (something that most Russians disagree with) was an important part of the Empire's
ideological struggle against the Soviet Union in the world and socialism everywhere. China is
not a communist country but it serves its people much better than, for example, India. And it
certainly plays a vital role, together with Russia in resisting the Imperial ruling class's
campaigns to reduce the globe to accepting the diktats of Washington, Wall St and
Hollywood.
... In the introduction to the second volume in his series, The State and the
Opposition , Rogovin noted:
A peculiarity of the counter-revolution realized by Stalin and his accomplices was that it
took place under the ideological cover of Marxist phraseology and never-ending attestations
of loyalty to the October Revolution Naturally, such a counter-revolution demanded
historically unprecedented conglomerations of lies and falsifications, the fabrication of
ever-newer myths
Similar to the Stalinists, modern anti-communists use two kinds of myths: namely,
ideological and historical. Under ideological myths we have in mind false ideas, oriented to
the future -- that is, illusory prognoses and promises. These sorts of products of false
consciousness reveal their mythological character by way of their practical realization.
Myths that appeal not to the future but to the past are another matter.
In principle, it is easier to expose these myths than anti-scientific prognoses and
reactionary projects.
Like ideological ones, historical myths are a product of immediate class interests
products of historical ignorance or deliberate falsification -- that is, the concealment of
some historical facts, the tendentious exaggeration, and the distorted interpretation of
others.
Refuting these myths is only possible by rehabilitating historical truth -- the honest
portrayal of actual facts and tendencies of the past.
In this work, Rogovin argued that the fundamental problem facing the USSR was "a
deepening of socially unjustified differentiation of incomes and the comforts of life."
"Workers regularly encounter instances of unearned enrichment through the deceit and the
ripping-off of the state and the people. [ ] Certain groups of the population have the means to
meet their needs at a scale beyond any reasonable norms and outside of their relationship to
social production. [ ] There does not exist any systematic control of sources of income and the
acquisition of valuable goods," he wrote.
In a remarkable statement, inequality, he insisted, not wage-leveling, expressed "in
essence, the social structure of [Soviet] society."
Rogovin called for the implementation of income declarations, whereby people would be
required to report the size of their total income, not just their official wages, so that the
government and researchers might actually know the real distribution of earnings. He advocated
for the establishment of a "socially-guaranteed maximum income" to combat "unjustified
inequality."
Vadim Rogovin and Nina Naumova's 1984 Social Development and Societal
Morals
Elsewhere, Rogovin further argued that inequality lay at the center of the USSR's falling
labor productivity. In a work co-authored with Nina Naumova, Social Development and
Societal Morals , he maintained that the socio-economic crisis facing the USSR stemmed
from the fact that inequality was growing in Soviet society; people worked poorly in the Soviet
Union not because their work was inadequately remunerated relative to others, but
because their commitment to social production had been eroded by intensifying social
stratification that was unrecorded in official statistics.
In 1983, the very same year that Rogovin authored his critical report on the state of
inequality in the USSR that ended up in the hands of the Moscow authorities, another
sociologist, Tatyana Zaslavskaya, would issue a report, kept secret at first but later leaked
to the Western press, advocating a transition to "economic methods of management," -- in other
words, market-based reforms. A central aspect of this was policy centered around increasing
inequality in workers' compensation in order to stimulate production. Zaslavskaya noted at the
time that such reforms would be opposed by what she described as "the more apathetic, the more
elderly, and the less qualified groups of workers."
In a few years, Zaslavskaya would become a leading advisor to Mikhail Gorbachev and one of
the main architects of the pro-market, perestroika reforms. In 1986, she was appointed
the head of the Soviet Sociological Association. Her positions were widely embraced by the
discipline.
Tatiana Zaslavskaya and Mikhail Gorbachev 1989 at Congress of People's Deputies.
[Copyright RIA Novosti]
In contrast, Rogovin's views were frequently, and ever more so, the object of sharp
criticism. In 1985, a discussion occurred at the Institute of Sociology regarding a report
produced by Rogovin and his research team about Soviet lifestyles. In it, Rogovin made openly
critical comments about the anti-egalitarian impact of the shadow economy and the transfer of
wealth through inheritance. It was sharply criticized by some of the Institute's top scholars,
who both disagreed with its content and were nervous about the response it might get from the
authorities. At the discussion, one such individual remarked:
The report by the author presented here has two basic failings: 1) it is inadequately
self-critical; 2) the authors, and in particular, Rogovin himself, aren't appropriately
thinking of the addressee to whom this report is directed. The report is going to the highest
levels [of the Communist Party] and superfluous emotion is not necessary. The next criticism
[I have] is about "unjustified inequality." In principle, there can be no such thing.
[ ] in the note to the TsK KPSS [Central Committee of the Communist Party] [ ] the
recommendations [that you make] demand the utmost care in how you approach them, particularly
those that relate to the "third economy" and taxes on inheritance. [There should be] a
minimum of categoricalness and a maximum of conciliatoriness.
As the decade wore on, Rogovin began to adopt an ever more critical stance on
perestroika , whose devastating economic consequences were increasingly showing
themselves. Rather than bringing prosperity to the masses, Gorbachev's reforms created a total
crisis in the state sector of the economy, exacerbating widespread shortages in food, clothing
and other basic necessities. Economic growth declined from 1986 onwards. In 1989, inflation
reached 19 percent, eroding the gains the population had made in income over the preceding
years. As the scholar John Elliot noted, "When account is taken of additional costs, real per
capita income and real wages probably decreased, particularly for the bottom half of the
population. These costs included: deteriorating quality and unavailability of goods;
proliferation of special distribution channels; longer and more time-consuming lines; extended
rationing; higher prices and higher inflation-rates in non-state stores (e.g., collective farm
market prices were nearly three times those in state stores in 1989); virtual stagnation in the
provision of health and education; and the growth of barter, regional autarky, and local
protectionism."
Newly established private enterprises had great leeway to set prices because they faced
little to no competition from the state sector. They charged whatever the market would bear,
which led to substantial increases in income inequality and poverty, with the most vulnerable
layers of the population hardest hit. The changes were so severe that Elliot insists that
"income inequalities had actually become greater in the USSR than in the USA." In the late
1980s, fully two-thirds of the Soviet population had an income that fell below the
officially-recommended "decent level" of 100 to 150 rubles a month. At the same time, the
shadow economy alone is estimated to have produced 100,000–150,000 millionaires in the
late 1980s. By the early 1990s, one-quarter of the population or 70 million people were
destitute according to official Soviet estimates. Miners' strikes and other signs of social
discontent erupted across the country.
Sociologists were intimately aware of the growing popular discontent. The Communist Party
bureaucracy called upon them to help manage the situation. In 1989, the director of the
Institute of Sociology received a request from the highest layers of the Communist Party. He
was asked to respond to a letter from a rank-and-file party member that expressed extreme
hostility towards the country's "elites." The letter writer described the party as dominated by
an "opportunist nucleus" and called for the waging of a "class war" by the working masses
against their policies. The ideology division of the Central Committee of the Communist Party
wanted the Institute's director to respond to the letter because the sentiments expressed in it
were "widespread (representative) [sic] among the working class."
Soviet economist and
sociologist Genady Lisichkin
In the midst of these circumstances, Rogovin came under fire in one of the country's media
outlets for articles he was writing against the promotion of social inequality. Since the
mid-1980s, he had been championing the implementation of income declarations that would require
people to report their full earnings, progressive taxes, and a socially-declared maximum
income. Based on the amount of positive correspondence he was receiving from readers, it was
clear that his views resonated with the population, a fact noted by Western scholars at the
time. In a public press debate with the economist Gennady Lisichkin, the latter accused Rogovin
of wanting to strengthen the hand of the bureaucracy and implied that he was a Stalinist. He
was allegedly guilty of "Luddism," religious-like preaching, misquoting Marx to find support
for his arguments, wanting the state to have the power to move people around "like cattle,"
defending a deficit-system of distribution based on "ration cards," suffering from "left-wing"
infantilism, and being a "demagogue" and a "war communist." He attempted to link Rogovin to the
very force to which he was most hostile -- Stalinism. The head of the Soviet Sociological
Association, Tatiana Zaslavskaya, openly endorsed Lisichkin's positions.
The disagreements between Rogovin and other scholars over perestroika evolved into
a fierce dispute about Soviet history and the nature of Stalinism. Rogovin identified a
relationship between cheerleading for pro-market reforms and historical falsification. There
was an increasingly widespread effort to link egalitarianism with Stalinism, the struggle for
equality with political repression. In Was There an Alternative? , Rogovin frequently
talked about the fact that the move towards a market economy was accompanied by the propagation
of myths about Soviet history. This was one of those myths.
In 1991, Zaslavskaya co-authored a book that claimed that the Soviet Union's problems lay in
the fact that in the late 1920s it abandoned the New Economic Policy (NEP), during which the
government had loosened state control of the economy and restored market relations to an
extent, in an effort to revitalize the economy under conditions of isolation, backwardness, and
near economic collapse due to years of war. A one-sided and historically dishonest account of
the NEP, this work did not contain any discussion of the political struggle that occurred
during the NEP between Stalin and the Left Opposition over the malignant growth of inequality,
the bureaucratization of the state and economy, and the crushing of inner-party democracy. The
book skipped over this history because it would have cut across one of the central arguments
made at the time in favor of perestroika -- that market relations were inherently at
odds with the interests of the Communist Party bureaucracy. The book's account of labor policy
under Stalin was also false. It insisted that during the 1930s revolutionary enthusiasm was the
primary method used to stimulate people to work, ignoring the fact that income inequality rose
substantially at this time. As the scholar Murray Yanowitch has pointed out, under Stalin
"equality mongering" was labeled the brainchild of "Trotskyites, Zinovievites, Bukharinites and
other enemies of the people."
In the 1980s, sociologists and other scholars promoting perestroika sought to imbue
these policies with a humanitarian mission, insisting that market reforms would allow "the
human factor," which had been crushed under the weight of bureaucratic stagnation, to rise
again. The "human factor" was defined as man's desire for personal recognition through
differentiated, material reward. It was supposedly the primary driver of human activity. To the
degree that official wage policy in the USSR led to a relatively egalitarian distribution of
social resources with wages leveled-out between skilled and unskilled labor, it flew in the
face of man's desire for recognition of his own individual contribution. Rising inequality in
income -- necessitated by the demands of socio-economic development -- was part of the process
of "humanizing socialism." The argument was made that increasing social stratification would
ultimately provide real "socialist justice."
As Tatiana Zaslavskaya claimed in 1990, "Despite all its limitations, the 'classical' market
is, in fact, a democratic (and therefore anti-bureaucratic) economic institution. Within the
framework of its exchange relationships, all participants are at least formally equal; no-one
is subordinated to anyone else. Buyers and sellers act in their own interests and nobody can
make them conclude deals they do not want to conclude. The buyers are free to select sellers
who will let them have goods on the most advantageous terms, but the sellers too can chose
buyers offering the best price."
In making this argument, scholars relied upon the official Soviet definition of socialism --
"from each according to his ability, to each according to his labor" -- that was enshrined in
the country's 1936 constitution. This was also known as the Stalin constitution.
In 1988, Rogovin used the concept of the "human factor" to make a very different argument.
In a piece entitled, "The Human Factor and the Lessons of the Past," he insisted that the
defense of social inequality by the Soviet elite was one of the key reasons why the "human
factor" had degenerated in the USSR. The very best elements of "the human factor" had been
crushed by Stalin during the Terror. Corruption, disillusionment, parasitism, careerism and
individual self-promotion -- the most distinctive features of the Brezhnev era -- were the
"human factor" created by Stalinism. In promoting inequality and the market, Rogovin insisted,
perestroika did not mark a break with Stalinism or the legacy of the Brezhnev era, as
was so often claimed, but rather their further realization.
One year later he wrote, "The adherents of the new elitist conceptions want to see Soviet
society with such a level of social differentiation that existed under Stalin but having gotten
rid of Stalinist repression. It is forgotten that the debauched character of these repressions
[ ] flowed from the effort to not simply restrain, but rather physically annihilate above all
those forces in the party and in the country that, though silenced, rejected the social
foundations of Stalinism."
After years of studying these questions in near-total isolation, Rogovin was finally able to
write openly about this subject. He tested the waters by first publishing "L.D. Trotsky on Art"
in August 1989 in the journal Theater . It was followed shortly thereafter by an
article entitled "The Internal Party Struggles of the 1920s: Reasons and Lessons," also
published in a journal outside of his discipline, Political Education . Moving closer
to a forum likely to be followed by his colleagues in sociology, in early 1990 Rogovin
published "L.D. Trotsky on NEP" in Economic Sciences . And finally, a few months
later, "L.D. Trotsky on Social Relations in the USSR" came out in the flagship journal of his
discipline, Sociological Research .
Rogovin's first article on the subject within his discipline reviewed Trotsky's role in
Soviet history during the 1920s and summarized his seminal work, The Revolution
Betrayed . It made clear to whom Rogovin fundamentally owed the views he had been
advancing over the course of the previous decade.
Trotsky, however, continued to be vilified by Soviet officialdom. In 1987, on the 70th
anniversary of the Russian Revolution, Gorbachev described Trotsky as "the arch-heretic of
Soviet history, an 'excessively self-assured politician who always vacillated and cheated."
As a result of Rogovin's profound sympathies for Trotskyism and efforts to place his work in
the tradition of the Left Opposition's critique of Stalinism, he was increasingly isolated from
his colleagues, several of whom entered the Yeltsin administration and helped facilitate the
eventual implementation of shock therapy, a key component of capitalist restoration in Russia.
His discipline never forgave him for his intransigence and principles. One will find almost no
mention of Rogovin or his contributions in the numerous monographs and other publications that
have come out over the last 20 years about sociology in the USSR.
But Rogovin's isolation from Soviet sociology did not undermine his capacity to work.
Rather, it coincided with the start of the publication of Was There an Alternative? In
1992, Rogovin met the International Committee of the Fourth International, and established a
close political and intellectual relationship with the world Trotskyist movement that would
intensify over the course of the next several years. This relationship was the basis upon which
Rogovin made his immense contribution to the fight to defend Trotsky and historical truth. Two
recently republished tributes to Rogovin by David
North review this history.
Despite his death twenty years ago, through his work Rogovin continues his struggle to arm
the working class with historical consciousness.
Oil and commodity markets were used as a finishing move on the Soviet system. The book,
"The Oil Card: Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century" by James R. Norman details the
use of oil futures as a geopolitical tool. Pipelines change the calculus quite a bit.
"... With all due cynical respect... I find it highly ironic that some of the biggest money launderers and Mafiosi are Baltic banks. The hilarity never ends. ..."
"... Full scale bull ****. No single former Soviet bloc country get into economic level of pre-Berlin wall fall. They are done. ..."
With all due cynical respect... I find it highly ironic that some of the biggest money
launderers and Mafiosi are Baltic banks. The hilarity never ends.
Here is classic: GDP PPP per capita. What to pay attention.
#1, After 30 years and joining EU and NATO there is no difference in former Soviet bloc.
Just looks like Russia is greatest profiteer. Now those parasites are chained to west.
#2, countries of former Soviet bloc are in better shape than countries that were in sphere
of western imperialism. Especially look at countries where USA imperialism worked since 1823
Monroe's doctrine. Chart shows that in 200 years USA was not able to achieve much progress
despite permanent military interventions and political influence.
As much as I like the idea of taking my state to Estonia status, too many winner-take-all
politicians and weak thinkers to recognize that new borders would solve lots and lots of
problems.
Socialists are clearly smart, but in actuality just simple evil, immoral thieves. They
will be unlikely to support any secession because they know their enemies are the source of
their lucre.
Balkanization, what little there will be, will most likely come after we are drug into
WWIII and we are back to a 1700's subsistence existence.
A pessimist is never disappointed, but I will happily take an optimist's surprise if
people just stop and live and let live.
.............. try, try to "Unchain America" next July 4. What better way to celebrate
Independence Day than with a joining of hands across the land, if not to secede, then to
affirm our right to, one state at a time?
It's 2,790 miles from New York to Los Angeles, which is 14,731,200 feet. At three feet per
person, it would take around 4,910,400 people -- less than 1/66th of the US population -- to
make a human chain like the three Balkan states did.
@ Posted by: Peter AU 1 | Oct 1, 2018 1:25:43 AM | 73
The collapse of the USSR is a very complex issue, and we still don't have a consensus
(among the people who study this seriously).
I myself think the USSR collapsed because of two main factors that are inteconnected with
the world geopolitics of its time:
1) the USSR couldn't make the transition from the second to the third industrial
revolution in the 70s (i.e. from fordism to toyotism/ohnism). Albeit it is true the USA never
really embraced toyotism (just some pockets in the Silicon Valley and the financial sector),
it is a fact the capitalist world, as a whole, did, because it worked out in Japan and South
Korea -- many of these techonologies bleeding to the world market.
The USSR, since Stalin, adopted a method of "socialist primitive accumulation", where
every techonological revolution depended on a forced (centralized) global collectivization:
the old had to be entirely dismantled for the new to be built over the carcass of this old.
This was a brutal (albeit quick and effective) method, so it was always risky and left the
USSR exposed to the capitalists militarily.
Another problem with the USSR system was that toyotism was based on heavy investment in
"human capital", i.e. investment on the workers' education and specialization. Forced
collectivization, therefore, excluded the possibility of toyotism by design, so it was never
truly an option for the post-Stalin Soviet leaders.
In a world only the USSR and the COMECON countries existed, it could've be stationed in
the second industrial revolution forever: the USSR never had a recession (except in 1990 and
1991, when it was already de facto capitalist). It was stagnant, but not collapsing. But it
didn't exist alone: on the other side of Berlin, there was the capitalist world, and, in this
dual world, not transitioning to toyotism was not an option for the Soviet Union.
2) In a bipolar world, with the toyotism path closed, Soviet bureaucrats developed a class
sentiment, which put pressure from the inside on the Soviet inherent egalitarian system. In
other words, the USSR was a victim of its own success: the problem was that that success came
too early, in a world where capitalism still existed.
In the 1980s, the USSR had already eradicated poverty and the most well-paid worker (a
high bureaucrat) received four times the salary of the lowest-paid worker. The basic public
services (transport, education and healthcare) already were free at the point of use and
universal and of a very good quality.
The problem was that the USSR emphasized too much on the production of infrastructure and
too little on consumption goods, which were already of a poor quality when compared to the
Western ones. The high Soviet bureaucracy, in constant contact with the capitalist world, was
then slowly, but surely, coopted by the delicacies of the West, and thus developed a urge of
class distinction.
This "urge" can be illustrated by an anecdote. When Yeltsin was still the President of
Soviet Russia, George H. W. Bush invited him to Houston. There, he was marvelled by Jack
Daniel's whiskey and asked for some cases for the trip back. Therefore the joke he sold the
Soviet Union for two cases of Jack Daniel's.
"... "The true treasures of the Church are the poor, the little ones to be helped not merely by occasional alms but in the way they can be promoted," ..."
"... "He talked particularly of his concern over 'Los Desaparecidos', people who had vanished off the face of Argentinian earth in their thousands. By the conclusion of the 15th minute audience the General began to wish that he had heeded the eleventh-hour attempts of Vatican officials to dissuade him coming to Rome," ..."
"... "His mind was as strong, as hard and as sharp as a diamond. That was where his real power was. He understood and had the ability to get to the centre of a problem. He could not be overwhelmed. When everyone was applauding the smiling Pope, I was waiting for him 'tirare fuori le unghie', to reveal his claws. He had tremendous power." ..."
"... But John Paul I never lived to exercise his "tremendous power." ..."
"... "The public speculation that this death was not natural grew by the minute. Men and women were heard shouting at the inert form: Who has done this to you? Who has murdered you?" ..."
"... David Yallop revealed that on the day of his death, the Pope had discussed a reshuffle of Vatican staff with Secretary of State Cardinal Jean Villot, who was also to be replaced. Yallop claimed that the Pope had a list of a number of clerics who belonged to the Freemasons, membership of which was strictly prohibited by the Church. The most sinister of these Masonic lodges was the fiercely anti-communist Propaganda Due (P2), which held great influence in Italy at this time, being referred to as a "state within a state." ..."
"... "Had he lived another week, the United States would have been looking at a half a dozen mini-Cubas in its back yard," ..."
"... "The single fact of John Paul II's election in 1978 changed everything. In Poland, everything began Then the whole thing spread. He was in Chile and Pinochet was out. He was in Haiti and Duvalier was out. He was in the Philippines and Marcos was out," ..."
"... In 1985, Agca's confederate, Abdullah Catli, who was later killed in a car crash, testified that he had been approached by the West German BND spy organization, which promised him a large sum of money "if he implicated the Bulgarian secret service and the KGB in the attempt on the Pope's life." ..."
"... "ex-CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman disclosed that his colleagues, under pressure from CIA higher-ups, skewed their reports to try to lend credence to the contention that the Soviets were involved. 'The CIA had no evidence linking the KGB to the plot,' Goodman told the Senate Intelligence Committee." ..."
"... In 2011, a new book entitled 'To Kill the Pope, the Truth about the Assassination Attempt on John Paul II', which was based on 20 years of research, concluded that the CIA had indeed tried to frame Bulgaria, in order to discredit communism. ..."
"... The great irony of course is that after the Berlin Wall came down, Pope John Paul II became a strong critic of the inhumane 'greed is good' model of capitalism which had replaced communism. In Latvia, he said capitalism was responsible for "grave social injustices" and acknowledged that Marxism contained "a kernel of truth." He said that "the ideology of the market" made solidarity between people "difficult at best." In Czechoslovakia, he warned against replacing communism with materialism and consumerism. ..."
"... Follow Neil Clark @NeilClark66 ..."
"... Think your friends would be interested? Share this story! ..."
The sudden death of Pope John Paul I, exactly 40 years ago today, stunned the world. The
'Smiling Pope' had only served for 33 days. His demise and replacement by John Paul II marked
an important turning point in the old Cold War. The year 1978, as I argued in a previous op-ed,
was the year today's world was made.
There was nothing inevitable about the ascendancy of Reagan and Thatcher, the rise of groups
like Al-Qaeda and IS, and the downfall of the Soviet Union. The neoliberal, neoconservative
world order and its associated violence came about because of key events and decisions which
took place 40 years ago. The Vatican was at the heart of these events.
The drama which unfolded there in the summer of 1978 would have been rejected as being too
far-fetched if sent in as a film script. In a space of two and a half months, we had three
different Popes. There was no great surprise when, on August 6, the first of them, Pope Paul
VI, died after suffering a massive heart attack. The Supreme Pontiff, who had served since
1963, was 80 and had been in declining health. But the death of his much younger successor,
John Paul I, a radical reformer who wanted to build a genuine People's Church, has fuelled
conspiracy theories to this day.
Cardinal Albino Luciani, the working-class son of a bricklayer (and staunch socialist), from
a small town in northern Italy, was a Pope like no other. He refused a coronation and detested
being carried on the sedia gestatoria – the Papal chair. He hated pomp and circumstance
and pretentiousness. His speeches were down to earth and full of homely observations, with
regular references to popular fiction. He possessed a gentle humor and always had a twinkle in
his eye. He was by all accounts an incredibly sweet man.
But there was steel there, too. Luciani was determined to root out corruption, and to
investigate the complex financial affairs of the Vatican's own bank, and its connection to the
scandal-hit Banco Ambrosiano.
While he had declared communism to be incompatible with Christianity, his father's
egalitarian ethos stayed with him. "The true treasures of the Church are the poor, the
little ones to be helped not merely by occasional alms but in the way they can be
promoted," he once said. At a meeting with General Videla of Argentina, he made clear his
abhorrence of fascism. "He talked particularly of his concern over 'Los Desaparecidos',
people who had vanished off the face of Argentinian earth in their thousands. By the conclusion
of the 15th minute audience the General began to wish that he had heeded the eleventh-hour
attempts of Vatican officials to dissuade him coming to Rome," noted David Yallop in his
book 'In God's Name'.
One cleric, Father Busa, wrote of John Paul I: "His mind was as strong, as hard and as
sharp as a diamond. That was where his real power was. He understood and had the ability to get
to the centre of a problem. He could not be overwhelmed. When everyone was applauding the
smiling Pope, I was waiting for him 'tirare fuori le unghie', to reveal his claws. He had
tremendous power."
But John Paul I never lived to exercise his "tremendous power." He was found
dead in his bed on the morning of September 28, 1978. The official story was that the 'Smiling
Pope' had died from a heart attack. But it wasn't long before questions were being asked. John
Paul I was only 65 and had appeared to be in fine health.
The fact that there was no post-mortem only added to the suspicions. "The public
speculation that this death was not natural grew by the minute. Men and women were heard
shouting at the inert form: Who has done this to you? Who has murdered you?" wrote David
Yallop.
David Yallop revealed that on the day of his death, the Pope had discussed a reshuffle
of Vatican staff with Secretary of State Cardinal Jean Villot, who was also to be replaced.
Yallop claimed that the Pope had a list of a number of clerics who belonged to the Freemasons,
membership of which was strictly prohibited by the Church. The most sinister of these Masonic
lodges was the fiercely anti-communist Propaganda Due (P2), which held great influence in Italy
at this time, being referred to as a "state within a state." The murky world of P2,
and its leaders' links with organized crime, the Mafia and the CIA is discussed in 'In God's
Name'.
Another writer, Lucien Gregoire, author of 'Murder by the Grace of God', points the finger
of blame squarely at the CIA. He notes a seemingly strange coincidence, namely that on
September 3, 1978, just 25 days before the Pope himself died, Metropolitan Nikodim, the
visiting leader of the Russian Orthodox Church, who was later revealed to have been a KGB
agent, fell dead at John Paul's feet in the Vatican after sipping coffee. He was only 48.
Gregoire says that the CIA dubbed John Paul I 'the Bolshevik Pope' and was keen to eliminate
him before he presided over a conference the Puebla Conference in Mexico. "Had he lived
another week, the United States would have been looking at a half a dozen mini-Cubas in its
back yard," he writes.
While there's no shortage of suspects if you believe that John Paul I was murdered, it needs
to be stressed that despite the contradictory statements made about the circumstances of his
death, and the strange coincidences, no evidence has yet been produced to show that his death
was not a natural one. What we can say though is that there will have been quite a few powerful
and influential people in Italy and beyond who were relieved that the 'Smiling Pope' had such a
short time in office.
His successor, the Polish Archbishop Karol Wojtyla, who took the name 'John Paul II' as a
homage to his predecessor, made it clear that investigating the Vatican's financial activities
and uncovering Freemasons was not a priority. As a patriotic Pole, his appointment was manna
from Heaven for anti-communist hawks in the US State Department. "The single fact of John
Paul II's election in 1978 changed everything. In Poland, everything began Then the whole thing
spread. He was in Chile and Pinochet was out. He was in Haiti and Duvalier was out. He was in
the Philippines and Marcos was out," said Joaquin Navarro-Valls, John Paul II's press
secretary.
The way that Pope John Paul II spoke out against what he regarded as communist repression,
not only in his native Poland but across Eastern Europe and beyond, saw him being toasted by
the neocon faction. It might not have been just words either, which helped undermine communist
rule. There was a rumor that 'God's Banker' Roberto Calvi, who in 1982 was found hanging from
Blackfriars Bridge in London, had sent $50mn to 'Solidarity' in Poland on behalf of the
Pope.
In May 1981, John Paul II was shot and wounded by Turkish gunman Mehmet Ali Agca. Neocons in
the US promoted the narrative that it was a communist plot (organized by Bulgaria), but Sofia
denied involvement. In 1985, Agca's confederate, Abdullah Catli, who was later killed
in a car crash, testified that he had been
approached by the West German BND spy organization, which promised him a large sum of money "if
he implicated the Bulgarian secret service and the KGB in the attempt on the Pope's
life."
Martin Lee, writing in Consortium News, also notes
that in 1990, "ex-CIA analyst Melvin A. Goodman disclosed that his colleagues, under
pressure from CIA higher-ups, skewed their reports to try to lend credence to the contention
that the Soviets were involved. 'The CIA had no evidence linking the KGB to the plot,' Goodman
told the Senate Intelligence Committee."
In 2011, a new book entitled 'To Kill the Pope, the Truth about the Assassination
Attempt on John Paul II', which was based on 20 years of research,
concluded that the CIA had indeed tried to frame Bulgaria, in order to discredit
communism.
The great irony of course is that after the Berlin Wall came down, Pope John Paul II
became a strong critic of the inhumane 'greed is good' model of capitalism which had replaced
communism. In Latvia, he said capitalism was responsible for "grave social injustices" and
acknowledged that Marxism contained "a kernel of truth." He said that "the ideology of the
market" made solidarity between people "difficult at best." In Czechoslovakia, he
warned against replacing communism with materialism and consumerism.
Having enlisted the assistance of the Vatican in helping to bring down 'The Reds', the
neo-liberals and neo-cons then turned on the Church. The Church survived communism, but it
hasn't fared too well under consumerism. The Vatican is nowhere near as influential as it was
in 1978. The US, meanwhile, unconstrained by a geopolitical counter-weight, threw its weight
around the world after 1989, illegally invading and attacking a series of sovereign states.
One can only wonder how different things might have been if the 'Smiling Pope' had
lived.
"... "I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again," Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect." Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts." With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown behind a Russian presidential candidate. ..."
"... Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear: Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it, Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner. Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances. ..."
"... Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits, but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact, it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate in the Russian presidency. ..."
"... American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret. On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won, Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined, "Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris." ..."
"... This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. ..."
"... It is a delightful irony that shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today. ..."
FOR ONE OF THE world's major powers to interfere systematically in the presidential
politics of another country is an act of brazen aggression. Yet it happened.
Sitting in a distant capital, political leaders set out to assure that their
favored candidate won an election against rivals who scared them. They succeeded.
Voters were maneuvered into electing a president who served the interest of
the intervening power. This was a well-coordinated, government-sponsored project
to subvert the will of voters in another country -- a supremely successful piece
of political vandalism on a global scale.
The year was 1996. Russia was electing a president to succeed Boris Yeltsin,
whose disastrous presidency, marked by the post-Soviet social collapse and a
savage war in Chechnya, had brought his approval rating down to the single digits.
President Bill Clinton decided that American interests would be best served
by finding a way to re-elect Yeltsin despite his deep unpopularity. Yeltsin
was ill, chronically alcoholic, and seen in Washington as easy to control. Clinton
bonded with him. He was our "Manchurian Candidate."
"I guess we've just got to pull up our socks and back ol' Boris again,"
Clinton told an aide. "I know the Russian people have to pick a president, and
I know that means we've got to stop short of giving a nominating speech for
the guy. But we've got to go all the way in helping in every other respect."
Later Clinton was even more categorical: "I want this guy to win so bad it hurts."
With that, the public and private resources of the United States were thrown
behind a Russian presidential candidate.
Part of the American plan was public. Clinton began praising Yeltsin as a
world-class statesman . He defended Yeltsin's scorched-earth tactics in Chechnya,
comparing him to Abraham Lincoln for his dedication to keeping a nation together.
As for Yeltsin's bombardment of the Russian Parliament in 1993, which cost 187
lives, Clinton insisted that his friend had "bent over backwards" to avoid it.
He stopped mentioning his plan to extend NATO toward Russia's borders, and never
uttered a word about the ravaging of Russia's formerly state-owned economy by
kleptocrats connected to Yeltsin. Instead he gave them a spectacular gift.
Four months before the election, Clinton arranged for the International
Monetary Fund to give Russia a $10.2 billion injection of cash. Yeltsin used
some of it to pay for election-year raises and bonuses, but much quickly disappeared
into the foreign bank accounts of Russian oligarchs. The message was clear:
Yeltsin knows how to shake the Western money tree. In case anyone missed it,
Clinton came to Moscow a few weeks later to celebrate with his Russian partner.
Oligarchs flocked to Yeltsin's side. American diplomats persuaded one of his
rivals to drop out of the presidential race in order to improve his chances.
Four American political consultants moved to Moscow to help direct Yeltsin's
campaign. The campaign paid them $250,000 per month for advice on "sophisticated
methods of polling, voter contact and campaign organization." They organized
focus groups and designed advertising messages aimed at stoking voters' fears
of civil unrest. When they saw a CNN report from Moscow saying that voters were
gravitating toward Yeltsin because they feared unrest, one of the consultants
shouted in triumph: "It worked! The whole strategy worked. They're scared to
death!"
Yeltsin won the election with a reported 54 percent of the vote. The
count was suspicious and Yeltsin had wildly violated campaign spending limits,
but American groups, some funded in part by Washington, rushed to pronounce
the election fair. The New York Times called it "a victory for Russia." In fact,
it was the opposite: a victory by a foreign power that wanted to place its candidate
in the Russian presidency.
American interference in the 1996 Russian election was hardly secret.
On the contrary, the press reveled in our ability to shape the politics of a
country we once feared. When Clinton maneuvered the IMF into giving Yeltsin
and his cronies $10.2 billion, the Washington Post approved: "Now this is the
right way to serve Western interests. . . It's to use the politically bland
but powerful instrument of the International Monetary Fund." After Yeltsin won,
Time put him on the cover -- holding an American flag. Its story was headlined,
"Yanks to the Rescue: The Secret Story of How American Advisors Helped Yeltsin
Win." The story was later made into a movie called "Spinning Boris."
This was the first direct interference in a presidential election in
the history of US-Russia relations. It produced bad results. Yeltsin opened
his country's assets to looting on a mass scale. He turned the Chechen
capital, Grozny, into a wasteland. Standards of living in Russia fell dramatically.
Then, at the end of 1999, plagued by health problems, he shocked his country
and the world by resigning. As his final act, he named his successor: a little-known
intelligence officer named Vladimir Putin. It is a delightful irony that
shows how unwise it can be to interfere in another country's politics. If the
United States had not crashed into a presidential election in Russia 22 years
ago, we almost certainly would not be dealing with Putin today.
"... This silly article is proof, as if more was needed that what passes for Russia scholarship in the US is little more than politicized group-think. ..."
"... Russia has risen from utter economic, political, and societal collapse (gold reserves, factories, military secrets, science labs stripped bare and shipped or brain-drained out of the country; millions of pre-mature deaths; plunging birth rates) to recover, within a mere 20 years, to the point where the population has stabilized and the nation can credibly hold its own again on the world stage. Infrastructure is being rebuilt and modernized, the military has been restructured and re-equipped, pensions and salaries have risen 3 or 4-fold. ..."
"Vladimir Putin rode a counter-wave of anti-Western nationalism to power in Moscow."
Uh, no. Putin came to power at a time when Russia seemed to be falling apart, quite
literally. There was war in Chechnya, open criminal activity on the streets, and clear social
decay. Putin's popularity begins with his address to the nation after the bombing of the
Moscow metro, promising that the government (which he did not then lead) would chase those
responsible down and kill them, even if that meant chasing them into outhouses. The
relationship between the bombing and Putin's rise is so well-known that the conspiracy
theorists who have Jay Nordlinger's ear over at National Review claim that the bombing was a
set up by Putin's pals in the FSB, precisely to bring Putin to power.
My wife is Russian, from the city of Kazan in the Tatar Republic (part of Russia; it's
complicated), and when we were merely pen pals in 2003 she wrote me what it was like. It was
bad, very bad. At one point her entire neighborhood was placed under curfew on account of
open warfare between criminal gangs. And of course when we visit the cemetery today one sees
the striking spike in tombstones whose date of death is at some point in the mid- to late
90's, when it all seemed to be going to pieces and the government didn't even pay its own
employees for half a year.
Today, by contrast, Russians can walk the streets more or less without fear, count on a
paycheck, read in the news how their country has sent yet another capsule of Western
astronauts to the international space station (because Westerners haven't been able to do
that for the better part of a decade, thanks to Bush and Obama), and even find jobs in a
successful tech sector (Kaspersky, JetBrains, Yandex, the list goes on).
But, hey, if you want to fantasize that Putin's rise is thanks to anti-Western sentiment,
you go ahead and do that.
One other comment, if I may. I share the concern most Westerners have about Russia's seizure
of Crimea. But where is our concern about Turkey's 40-plus-year occupation of northern
Cyprus, also sparked by internal political disorder on the island? Why is it alright for a
NATO country to invade another nation and prop up its separatists, expel the inhabitants of a
disfavored ethnic group -- in this case, the Greeks?
Shame on TAC for publishing this garbage. For one, Putin more or less saved Russia as a
sovereign state, it is easy to forget the sorry condition Russia was in at the turn of the
century. Without him, Russia would've most likely been dismembered or simply colonized by the
West and China. He has performed admirably in the face of massive odds. Russia will still
exist in 100 years as the state of the Russian and other native people of its land –
can the same be said of the United States? Russia is slowly climbing its way out of the pit
of despair created by 80 years of Communism, the United States is crawling into the very same
pit.
I am much more concerned that voter roll purges, suppression of the vote, Citizen's United
Dark Money and folks like the Kochs and Addelson are undermining US democracy than the
Russians. As for the aggression of military machines around the world, the US wins hands
down.
Like Fran my inclination was to bail after the first paragraph but I pushed on.
In the first paragraph Mr Desch lays out his position which is well within the bounds of
polite discussion that Russia is a corrupt oligarchy but don't worry because it's an economic
and military basketcase.
Where to start?
1. Corrupt kleptocracy. The Russian oligarchy/ mafia was a biproduct of the
privatization binge that followed the collapse of the USSR. This evolved under the disastrous
Yeltsin aided and abetted by US elites. The case of William Browder is instructive. Putin has
taken significant measures to reassert government control and has greatly improved the lot of
the average Russian.
2. Political freedom. Putin did not inherit a developed liberal democracy. Russia
needs to be judged in the context of its own historical timeline in this regard not compared
to western democracies. Do you prefer Stalin, Brezhnev, Andropov? In contrast compare the
state and trajectory of US democratic institutions to, say the 1970s.
3. Human rights. Again the situation in Russia vis a vis human rights needs to be
judged in terms of Russia's history not against Western nations with a long-standing
tradition of human rights and political freedoms. That said, the illusion of political
repression is largely overstated. For example Putin is routinely accused of murdering
journalists but no real proof is ever offered. Instead, the statement is made again in this
article as though it were self evident.
4. Foreign aggression. This is my favorite because it flies in the face of
observable reality to the point of being ridiculous. Russia did not invade Ukraine. It
provided support to ethnic Russians in Ukraine who rebelled after the illegal armed overthrow
of the Russian leaning democratically elected president.That coup was directly supported by
the United States. Far from ratcheting up tensions Russia has consistently pressed for the
implementation of the Minsk accords. Putin is not interested in becoming responsible for the
economic and political basket case which is Ukraine. The "largely bloodless" occupation of
Crimea was actually a referendum in which the citizens of Crimea overwhelmingly supported
annexation to Russia. Again This result makes sense in light of even a basic understanding of
Russian history. Finally, in the case of Georgia Russia engaged after Georgia attacked what
was essentially a Russian protectorate. This was the conclusion reached by an EU
investigation.
Russia's so-called aggressive foreign-policy has been primarily in response to NATOs
continuous push eastward and the perceived need to defend ethnic Russians from corrupt
ultranationalist governments in former republics of the USSR. This is what Putin was talking
about when he called the dissolution of the USSR one of the greatest tragedies of the 20th
century – the fact that, overnight 20 million Russians found themselves living in
foreign countries. It wasn't about longing for a Russian empire.
As for the current state of Russias military capabilities, Mr Desch Would do well to read
Pepe Escobar's recent article in the Asia Times. Russian accomplishments in Syria illustrated
a level of technology and strategic effectiveness that rivals anything the US can do. Name
one other nation – other than the US – that can design and build a world class
6th generation fighter jet or develop its own space program. Even Germany can't do that.
This silly article is proof, as if more was needed that what passes for Russia
scholarship in the US is little more than politicized group-think.
VG1959
"It is in the pursuit of empire that Putin, like Napoleon or Hitler before him, threatens the
stability of Europe and by extension world peace."
Ah! ha!ha! Right.
Like Russia with a population of 150 million persons inhabiting a land mass that stretches
across 9 or 10 time zones, from the Arctic pole to the Black Sea is chafing for "lebensraum"
!?
No, Russia just wants to develop what it already owns. And, trying to do it on the
strength of their own efforts (no overseas colonies filling the coffers), on a GDP as
Winston, above, has pointed out which is smaller than that some US states. They're focussed,
not on grabbing tiny, constipated territories like Estonia. Latvia, and Lithuania (full of
Nazi sympathizers), but on bringing back to life those ancient trade routes which are their
inheritance from the past (the Silk Road, primarily).
Why not just leave them alone and see what they can do? Those who have been relentlessly
picking fault with Russia (and North Korea) might want to put down their megaphones and start
taking notes.
What I mean is: pause for a moment to consider that:
1. Russia has risen from utter economic, political, and societal collapse (gold
reserves, factories, military secrets, science labs stripped bare and shipped or
brain-drained out of the country; millions of pre-mature deaths; plunging birth rates) to
recover, within a mere 20 years, to the point where the population has stabilized and the
nation can credibly hold its own again on the world stage. Infrastructure is being rebuilt
and modernized, the military has been restructured and re-equipped, pensions and salaries
have risen 3 or 4-fold.
2. North Korea, in 1953, had been so destroyed by war that no structures over a single
story were left standing (and American generals were actually barfing into their helmets at
the horror of what had been done to those people). The DPRK authorities, helpless to assist
the population, could only advise to dig shelters underground to survive the winter. Yet, 70
years later, under international sanctions designed to starve those traumatized people into
surrender, North Korea has restored its infrastructure, built modern cities, and developed a
military apparatus able to credibly resist constant threats from abroad.
See: rather than picking nits to find things that are not yet perfectly hunky-dory with
the governing structures/systems in those countries, I'm taking notes!!
Because, I'm convinced that if those people (those nations) were able to do what they've
done with the time and resources they've had to work with, there is absolutely no reason and
no excuse for our rich nations of "the West" to be caught in a nightmare of austerity
budgeting, crumbling infrastructure, collapsing pensions, and spiralling debt.
Funny how the English speaking world SO resisst learning something that could actually do
us a whole lot of good. I don't know who coined the terms "stiffnecked" and "bloodyminded",
but it sure describes us!
"From Moscow's perspective, the events in Kiev in late 2013 and 2014 looked suspiciously like
a Western-backed coup."
Gee, ya think? Kinda reminds one of the 1996 Russian election. But, hey, don't broadcast
this because, after all, too many people might start, er, noticing.
"... There are many modern myths. One of them is about the events of 1989 as being the culmination of a grand historical struggle for freedom and liberty. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For years prior to 1989 the West through a combination of both legal business and criminal activity had interpenetrated the Communist elites with lucrative deals and promises of all kinds. ..."
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
-- Shakespeare, "Julius Caesar"
There are many modern myths. One of them is about the events of 1989 as being the
culmination of a grand historical struggle for freedom and liberty. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For years prior to 1989 the West through a combination of both legal business and criminal
activity had interpenetrated the Communist elites with lucrative deals and promises of all
kinds.
This situation was even more pronounced in "non-aligned" Yugoslavia who for years had
maintained CIA and American and West European business contacts.
In effect, the "cold war" witnessed a rapid convergence between the economic and power
interests of both Western and Communist elites.
The "Communists" (in name only of course) quickly realized the economic benefits available
to them through at times open at times clandestine cooperation with Western business/criminal
interests.
Eventually, Communist elites realized that they had an unprecedented economic opportunity on
their hands: state privatization made possible, in part, with active Western participation.
For them, "Freedom" meant the freedom to get rich beyond their wildest dreams.
And the 1990's were just that. A paradise for thieving on an unimaginable scale all under
the rubric of the rebirth of "capitalism and freedom".
The true outcome of that decade was that the old communist elites not only retained their
social and political power behind the scenes; they also were able to enrich themselves beyond
anything the communist dictatorships could ever hope to offer them in the past.
Yes, the price was to give up imperial, national, and ideological ambitions. But it was a
very small price to pay; since the East European elites had ceased to believe in any of those
things years earlier.
The only firm belief they still held was the economic betterment of themselves and their
families through the acquisition by any means of as many asset classes as possible. In effect,
they became the mirror image of their "enemy" the "imperialist capitalist West".
This was not a case of historical dialectics but historical convergence. What appeared as a
world divided was actually a world waiting to be made whole through the basest of criminal
business activity.
But being clever thieves they knew how to hide themselves and their doings behind
superficially morally impeccable figures such as Vaclav Havel and Lech Wałęsa, to
name just a few. These "dissidents" would be the faces they would use to make a good part of
the world believe that 1989 was a narrative of freedom and not outright pubic theft which it
was.
Yes, people in the east, even in Russia, are freer now than they were. But it should never
be forgotten that the events of 1989/1990 were not even remotely about those revolutionary
dreams.
It was about something much more mundane and sordid. It was about greed. It was about the
maintenance of power. And finally it was about money.
How deep has the Western nexus of power and wealth gone into the heart of the East? So far
indeed that one can easily question to what extent a country like Russia is truly a "national"
state anymore and rather just a territory open to exploitation by both local and global
elites.
For that matter, we can ask the same question about the USA.
"... While not being a fan of Stalin, I acknowledge that only the people who rose to the top before Bolsheviks took power were good for anything. Those who rose after, from Khruschev on, were worthless nonentities. I consider this negative selection of leaders as one of the drawbacks of the Soviet system. ..."
Compared to modern western leaders Kruschev was rather good leader and Brezhnev is
downright genius. I was and am actually fond of Dear Leonid Iliich. So I believe it is not a
matter of social political organization but systematic and probably human feature.
The West has been producing non entities, idiots and morons at the top with unerring
consistency. It is just that conditions in the West are far more forgiving than in Russia.
Also we have not mentioned destruction and suffering caused by war in ussr somewhat lagging
in few aspects of life standards. Socialism slogan is from everyone by their abilities to
everyone for their contribution.
Hence obviously hardworking and better contributing people should be rewarded especially
like in Stalin times via glorifying and promoting them to higher status. Stahanov movement
comes to mind.
I think Stalin genius is underappreciated. Regarding weapons manufacturing I believe it
was a matter of great patriotic war shock.
That war in every respect has caused great damage to us including probably due to huge
loss of Tim and best human material laying foundation for further problems. Stalin wasted
8-10 years of his life to first win the war and then rebuild the country. Imagine no war. I
am pretty sure there would be no 1991.
While not being a fan of Stalin, I acknowledge that only the people who rose to the
top before Bolsheviks took power were good for anything. Those who rose after, from Khruschev
on, were worthless nonentities. I consider this negative selection of leaders as one of the
drawbacks of the Soviet system.
Materially the people in some Western countries lived better than the Soviet people.
However, the difference was ~2-3-fold at best, not 10+-fold as many in the USSR believed, and
there were (and are) very few countries with higher living standards than Russia. As far as
psychological wellbeing is concerned, the USSR compared to the West even better, except for
the people with excellent education and willingness to work hard, like me. That's the PR
campaign Soviet authorities lost to their peril: the support of better intellectually
equipped and the most active people.
I agree that nobody, even the laziest and most useless, should go hungry today, but the
difference between what those get and what hard-working people get should be many-fold.
Otherwise, the society provides disincentive for the people who can contribute, dragging
itself down.
Also, USSR should have paid more attention to the production of consumer goods, even if it
meant fewer tanks and artillery pieces. It's policies made all these tanks useless, anyway,
not to mention that today these tanks and other military hardware is used against Russia by
former "brothers" (with "bothers" like that, who needs enemies).
I agree that the people who went to college in Soviet times are better educated and more
creative than recent graduates. I am pretty sure that recent successes of Russian MIC are
largely due to the Soviet legacy. We'll see what happens next, as "effective managers" they
are cranking out now are totally useless in real life.
"... However, the truth – at least in retrospect – was that, in the Cold War years, the Soviets were actually doing Washington a strange, if unnoted, favor. Across much of the Eurasian continent, and other places from Cuba to the Middle East, Soviet power and the never-ending contest for influence and dominance that went with it always reminded American leaders that their own power had its limits. ..."
"... This, as the 21st century should have (but hasn't) made clear, was no small thing. It still seemed obvious then that American power could not be total. There were things it could not do, places it could not control, dreams its leaders simply couldn't have. Though no one ever thought of it that way, from 1945 to 1991, the United States, like the Soviet Union, was, after a fashion, "contained." ..."
"... In those years, the Russians were, in essence, saving Washington from itself. Soviet power was a tangible reminder to American political and military leaders that certain areas of the planet remained no-go zones (except in what, in those years, were called "the shadows"). ..."
"... The Soviet Union, in short, rescued Washington from both the fantasy and the hell of going it alone, even if Americans only grasped that reality at the most subliminal of levels. ..."
Think of it as the all-American version of the human comedy: a great power that eternally
knows what the world needs and offers copious advice with a tone deafness that would be
humorous, if it weren't so grim.
If you look, you can find examples of this just about
anywhere. Here, for instance, is a passage in The New York Times from a piece on the
topsy-turvy Trumpian negotiations that preceded the Singapore summit. "The Americans and South
Koreans," wrote
reporter Motoko Rich, "want to persuade the North that continuing to funnel most of the
country's resources into its military and nuclear programs shortchanges its citizens' economic
well-being. But the North does not see the two as mutually exclusive."
Think about that for a moment. The US has, of course, embarked on a trillion-dollar-plus
upgrade of its already massive nuclear arsenal (and
that's before the cost overruns even begin). Its Congress and president have for years proved
eager to sink at least a
trillion dollars annually into the budget of the national security state (a figure that's
still rising and
outpaces by far that of any other power on the planet), while its own infrastructure
sags and crumbles. And
yet it finds the impoverished North Koreans puzzling when they, too, follow such an extreme
path.
"Clueless" is not a word Americans ordinarily apply to themselves as a country, a people, or
a government. Yet how applicable it is.
And when it comes to cluelessness, there's another, far stranger path the United States has
been following since at least the George W Bush moment that couldn't be more consequential and
yet somehow remains the least noticed of all. On this subject, Americans don't have a clue. In
fact, if you could put the United States on a psychiatrist's couch, this might be the place to
start.
America contained
In a way, it's the oldest story on Earth: the rise and fall of empires. And note the plural
there. It was never – not until recently at least – "empire," always "empires."
Since the 15th century, when the fleets of the first European imperial powers broke into the
larger world with subjugation in mind, it was invariably a contest of many. There were at least
three or sometimes significantly more imperial powers rising and contesting for dominance or
slowly falling from it.
This was, by definition, the history of great powers on this planet: the challenging rise,
the challenged decline. Think of it for so many centuries as the essential narrative of
history, the story of how it all happened until at least 1945, when just two "superpowers," the
United States and the Soviet Union, found themselves facing off on a global scale.
Of the two, the US was always stronger, more powerful, and far wealthier. It theoretically
feared the Russian Bear, the Evil Empire , which it
worked assiduously to " contain " behind that famed Iron
Curtain and whose adherents in the US, always modest in number, were subjected to a mania of
fear and suppression.
However, the truth – at least in retrospect – was that, in the Cold War years,
the Soviets were actually doing Washington a strange, if unnoted, favor. Across much of the
Eurasian continent, and other places from Cuba to the Middle East, Soviet power and the
never-ending contest for influence and dominance that went with it always reminded American
leaders that their own power had its limits.
This, as the 21st century should have (but hasn't) made clear, was no small thing. It still
seemed obvious then that American power could not be total. There were things it could not do,
places it could not control, dreams its leaders simply couldn't have. Though no one ever
thought of it that way, from 1945 to 1991, the United States, like the Soviet Union, was, after
a fashion, "contained."
In those years, the Russians were, in essence, saving Washington from itself. Soviet power
was a tangible reminder to American political and military leaders that certain areas of the
planet remained no-go zones (except in what, in those years, were called "the shadows").
The Soviet Union, in short, rescued Washington from both the fantasy and the hell of going
it alone, even if Americans only grasped that reality at the most subliminal of levels.
That was the situation until December 1991 when, at the end of a centuries-long imperial
race for power (and the never-ending arms race that went with it), there was just one gigantic
power left standing on Planet Earth. It told you something about the thinking then that, when
the Soviet Union imploded, the initial reaction in Washington wasn't triumphalism (though that
came soon enough) but utter shock, a disbelieving sense that something no one had expected,
predicted, or even imagined had nonetheless happened. To that very moment, Washington had
continued to plan for a two-superpower world until the end of time.
America
uncontained
Soon enough, though, the Washington elite came to see what happened as, in the phrase of the
moment, " the end of
history ." Given the wreckage of the Soviet Union, it seemed that an ultimate victory had
been won by the very country its politicians would soon come to call "the last superpower," the
"
indispensable " nation, the " exceptional
" state, a land great beyond imagining (until, at least, Donald Trump hit
the campaign trail with a slogan that implied greatness wasn't all-American any more).
In reality, there were a variety of paths open to the "last superpower" at that moment.
There was even, however briefly, talk of a "peace dividend" – of the possibility that, in
a world without contesting superpowers, taxpayer dollars might once again be invested not in
the sinews of war-making but of peacemaking (particularly in infrastructure and the well-being
of the country's citizens).
Such talk, however, lasted only a year or two and always in a minor key before being
relegated to Washington's attic. Instead, with only a few rickety "rogue" states left to deal
with – like gulp North Korea, Iraq and Iran – that money never actually headed
home, and neither did the thinking that went with it.
Consider it the good fortune of the geopolitical dreamers soon to take the reins in
Washington that the first Gulf War of 1990-1991, which ended less than a year before the Soviet
Union collapsed, prepared the way for quite a different style of thinking. That instant victory
led to a new kind of militarized dreaming in which a highly tech-savvy military, like the one
that had driven Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein's forces out of Kuwait in such short order, would
be capable of doing anything on a planet without serious opposition.
And yet, from the beginning, there were signs suggesting a far grimmer future. To take but
one infamous example, Americans still remember the Black Hawk Down moment of 1993
when the world's greatest military fell victim to a Somali warlord and local militias and found
itself incapable of imposing its will on one of the least impressive not-quite-states on the
planet (a place
still frustrating that military a quarter-century later).
In that post-1991 world, however, few in Washington even considered that the 20th century
had loosed another phenomenon on the world, that of insurgent national liberation movements,
generally leftist rebellions, across what had been the colonial world – the very world of
competing empires now being tucked into the history books – and it hadn't gone away. In
the 21st century, such insurgent movements, now largely religious, or terror-based, or both,
would turn out to offer a grim new version of containment to the last
superpower.
Unchaining the indispensable nation
On September 11, 2001, a canny global jihadist by the name of Osama bin Laden
sent his air force (four hijacked US passenger jets) and his precision weaponry (19
suicidal, mainly Saudi followers) against three iconic targets in the American pantheon: the
Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and undoubtedly the Capitol or the White House (neither of
which was hit because one of those jets crashed in a field in
Pennsylvania). In doing so, in a sense bin Laden not only loosed a literal hell on Earth, but
unchained
the last superpower.
William Shakespeare would have had a word for what followed: hubris. But give the top
officials of the Bush administration (and the neocons who supported them) a break. There had
never been a moment like it: a moment of one. A single great power left alone, triumphant, on
planet Earth. Just one superpower – wealthy beyond compare, its increasingly high-tech
military unmatched, its only true rival in a state of collapse – had now been challenged
by a small jihadist group.
To president Bush, vice-president Dick Cheney, and the rest of their crew, it seemed like
nothing short of a heaven-sent opportunity. As they came out of the shock of 9/11, of that "
Pearl
Harbor of the 21st century ," it was as if they had found a magic formula in the ruins of
those iconic buildings for the ultimate control of the planet. As secretary of defense Donald
Rumsfeld would instruct an aide
at the Pentagon that day, "Go massive. Sweep it up. Things related and not."
Within days, things related and not were indeed being swept up. The country was almost
instantly said to be "at war," and soon that conflict even had a name, the Global War on
Terror. Nor was that war to be against just al-Qaeda, or even one country, an Afghanistan
largely ruled by the Taliban. More than 60 countries said to have "terror
networks" of various sorts found themselves almost instantly in the administration's potential
gunsights. And that was just to be the beginning of it all.
In October 2001, the invasion of Afghanistan was launched. In the spring of 2003, the
invasion of Iraq followed, and those were only the initial steps in what was increasingly
envisioned as the imposition of a Pax Americana on the Greater Middle East.
There could be no doubt, for instance, that Iran and Syria, too, would
soon go the way of Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush's top officials had been nursing just such dreams
since, in 1997, many of them formed a
think-tank (the first ever to enter the White House) called the Project for the New American
Century and began to write out what
were then the fantasies of figures nowhere near power. By 2003, they were power itself and
their dreams, if anything, had grown even more grandiose.
In addition to imagining a political Pax Republicana in the United States, they truly
dreamed of a future planetary Pax Americana in which, for the first time in history, a single
power would, in some fashion, control the whole works, the Earth itself.
And this wasn't to be a passing matter either. The Bush administration's "unilateralism"
rested on a conviction that it could actually create a future in which no country or even bloc
of countries would ever come close to matching or challenging US military power. The
administration's National Security Strategy of 2002 put the
matter bluntly: The US was to "build and maintain" a military, in the phrase of the moment,
" beyond challenge
."
They had little doubt that, in the face of the most technologically advanced, bulked-up,
destructive force on Earth, hostile states would be "shocked and awed" by a simple demonstration of
its power, while friendly ones would have little choice but to come to heel as well. After all,
as Bush said at a Veterans of
Foreign Wars convention in 2007, the US military was "the greatest force for human liberation
the world has ever known."
Though there was much talk at the time about the "liberation" of Afghanistan and then Iraq,
at least in their imaginations the true country being liberated was the planet's lone
superpower. Although the Bush administration was officially considered a "conservative" one,
its key officials were geopolitical dreamers of the first order and their vision of the world
was the very opposite of conservative. It harkened back to nothing and looked forward to
everything.
It was radical in ways that should have, but didn't, take the American public's breath away;
radical in ways that had never been seen before.
Shock and awe for the last
superpower
Think of what those officials did in the post-9/11 moment as the ultimate act of greed. They
tried to swallow a whole planet. They were determined to make it a planet of one in a way that
had never before been seriously imagined.
It was, to say the least, a vision of madness. Even in a moment when it truly did seem
– to them at least – that all constraints had been taken off, an administration of
genuine conservatives might have hesitated. Its top officials might, at least, have approached
the post-Soviet situation with a modicum of caution and modesty.
But not George W Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and pals. In the face of what seemed
like the ultimate in possibilities they proved clueless when it came to the possibility that
anything on Earth might have a shot at containing them.
Even among their critics, who could have imagined then that, more than 16 years later,
having faced only lightly armed enemies of various sorts, still wealthy beyond compare, still
with a military funded in a way the next seven
countries couldn't cumulatively match,
the United States would have won literally nothing?
Who could have imagined that, unlike so many preceding imperial powers (including the US of
the earlier Cold War era), it would have been able to establish control over nothing at all;
that, instead, from Afghanistan to Syria, Iraq deep into Africa, it would find itself in a
state of "
infinite war " and utter frustration on a planet filled with ever more failed
states , destroyed
cities , displaced people , and
right-wing "populist" governments, including the one in Washington?
Who could have imagined that, with a peace dividend no longer faintly conceivable, this
country would have found itself not just in decline, but – a new term is needed to catch
the essence of this curious moment – in what might be called self-decline?
Yes, a new power, China, is finally rising – and doing so on a planet that seems
itself to be
going down . Here, then, is a conclusion that might be drawn from the quarter-century-plus
in which America was both unchained and largely alone.
The Earth is admittedly a small orb in a vast universe, but the history of this century so
far suggests one reality about which America's rulers proved utterly clueless: After so many
hundreds of years of imperial struggle, this planet still remains too big, too disparate, too
ornery to be controlled by a single power. What the Bush administration did was simply take one
gulp too many and the result has been a kind of national (and planetary) indigestion.
Despite what it looked like in Washington once upon a time, the disappearance of the Soviet
Union proved to be no gift at all, but a disaster of the first order. It removed all sense of
limits from America's political class and led to a tale of greed on a planetary scale. In the
process, it also set the US on a path to self-decline.
The history of greed in our time has yet to be written, but what a story it will someday
make. In it, the greed of those geopolitical dreamers will intersect with the greed of an ever
wealthier, ever more gilded 1%, of the billionaires who were preparing to swallow whole the
political system of that last superpower and grab so much of the wealth of the planet, leaving
so little for others.
Whether you're talking about the urge to control the planet militarily or financially, what
took place in these years could, in the end, result in ruin of a historic kind. To use a
favored phrase from the Bush years, one of these days we Americans may be facing little short
of "regime change" on a planetary scale. And what a piece of shock and awe that's likely to
prove to be.
All of us, of course, now live on the planet Bush's boys tried to swallow whole. They left
us in a world of infinite war, infinite harm, and in Donald Trump's America where cluelessness
has been raised to a new power.
Mixture of interesting although almost irrelevant information about personalities such as
Gorbachov and his wife (viewed over rose glasses) with some idiotic statements. Avoid.
The collapse of the USSR was the collapse of the society which ideology (Marxism-leninism)
collapsed and replacement it with neoliberalism. Neoliberal counterrevolution.
Also the economics of the USSR was a war economics. Part of it was due to the threat from the West and embargo on high tech.
Part due to own military-industrial complex. Agriculture was a failure. The net result was deterioration of he standard of
living in 80th. People because seduced by western consumerism and elite was seduced by neoliberal ideology. So
neoliberal revolution (counter-revolution) logically followed
April 5, 2017
In this lecture, William Taubman, professor of Political Science at Amherst College and the
Pulitzer Prize-winning author, sheds a light on how Mihail Gorbachev undermined the Soviet
system in pursuit of his dream of the democratized country.
The West will always hate Russia. Because the Soviet Union destroyed the colonial world
order where the rules of the West. Despotism of the "white man" was destroyed, and enslaved
peoples of Africa, Asia, Islamic world, Latin America was released. In the 19th century, the
West ruled the world, now only n their historical lands. Russia has caused considerable
damage to Western domination.
Why USSR collapsed according to America, Fake news. The USSR empire collapsed for the same
reasons that European empires collapsed. The American empire has been in decline for a while
now and will eventually collapsed too.
The USSR was doomed to collapse. It is a totally corrupted union, with selfish leaders who
lived in luxury while the people lived in poverty. However, it devoted its resources to
military development. No extra resources were given to production of consumer goods and foods
for the people. Its union comprises many countries with different races and cultures, which
could never be reconciled. Its collapse is just a matter of time, and could not blame
Gorbachev.
I know b is not fond of us posting content from other blogs but the Saker has just put up
a must-read interview with a personal favorite author of mine, F. William Engdhal, entitled
"The rape of Russia". Very informative, it documents the strategies put in place during the
Yeltsin years to plunder the assets of the new CIS. Enjoy!
After collapse of the USSR the mount of infometion that has flown to the West is staggering.
KGB might be then most open of intelleigence services in this sense. multiple defector probably
created a very complete picture of the organization and its methods.
July 2, 1996
A NOTE ON KGB STYLE
Wayne Lambridge
The KGB like any enduring institution has a style, its own way of doing things. When we
seek to understand the service and its officers, we should perhaps pay attention to how they
do business as well as to what kind of business they do. This article is intended to raise
the subject for discussion, to present largely one man's opinion. It is far from a definitive
study.
By way of indicating something about KGB style, consider the implications for the
organization as a whole of a communication system that carries one tenth or less as much
traffic -- both electric and by pouch -- as its American equivalent. The KGB sends very few
cables and its dispatches are infrequent. For maximum security, they are pouched on
undeveloped microfilm, which is recovered and printed when the dispatch reaches its
destination. Although Moscow headquarters does excellent and prompt printing, both exposure
and development are sometimes haphazard in the field. Ten years ago, they were downright
unreadable at times. Now, the quality is generally better. Volume, however, does not seem to
have risen much.
The prints of the developed films are seen by the Rezident (the KGB Chief of Station) and
by the case officer concerned. In large Rezidentury (KGB Stations) some intermediate may also
read the traffic, but that is by no means always the case. The Rezident keeps a file --
sometimes in the form of notes or perhaps as copies of pertinent cables and dispatches -- for
reference. The case officer keeps all his files in a briefcase or a notebook. Calling them
"files" is perhaps misleading. It is better to say that the KGB officer keeps a movable
In-Box. When a document leaves that box it is either returned to the Rezident or destroyed
and the fact of destruction recorded. The case file is really in the case officer's head. The
excellent memory that KGB officers often display concerning the details of their operations
may well be traceable to the necessity of remembering the vital information on each operation
that they cannot look up anywhere. Of course, when a new case officer replaces an old one,
especially if the latter has been unable to brief his successor fully, complications may
ensue. Illness, car accidents and PNG'ing have led to real chaos in some KGB operations when
a harassed new man has tried to tie down the broken threads of a departed colleague's dropped
contacts.
Although the amount of paper that he sees is small, the KGB case officer is held strictiy
accountable for each sheet of it. When he destroys a document, a notation to that effect is
included on a record. Even his scrap paper may bear a serial number and have to be accounted
for. At the Moscow headquarters each document is sewn into the file by the senior officer
directly responsible for the case. A special record of all documents in the file is kept by
the case officer and its accuracy is regularly verified by the case officer's supervisor.
Safe storage areas are locked and sealed with wax each night.
The ritual of sewing in the documents is often regarded as a waste of time by senior case
officers in Moscow. Nevertheless, they would not dream of delegating the job. It seems to
have a symbolic significance as an embodiment of both their authority and their
responsibility.
The KGB case officer is his own intel assistant. At headquarters he does his own traces,
gets his own documents from the archives and handcarries his own messages. Not too long ago,
he also often wrote or typed his own dispatches. Even now he may write his own telegrams and
personally take them and dispatches to his supervisor for review. In the field he is, if
anything, even more responsible for doing everything connected with his operation except for
technical surveillance and the like where he must call on experts.
The field case officer under official cover often works at his cover job about as much as
do his colleagues who do not have intelligence responsibilities. This obligation is usually
not as demanding on the case officer's time as it might first appear because KGB cover slots
are usually selected so that cover duties complement intelligence tasks to a substantial
degree. By contrast, other KGB officers have virtually no serious cover responsibilities and
rely on the all-embracing security system of the Soviet colony to protect their true
affiliation. In either case, the 'KGB officer is not expected to spend much time on the
administrative or reporting aspects of his intelligence job. Within the limitations of his
cover assignment, he is supposed to be out on the street, making contacts, working agents and
performing other intelligence tasks, reporting only the highlights and the most crucial
information back to headquarters.
In developing new sources, he will usually bring things along to the point where
recruitment or some other substantial development is clearly foreseeable before asking for
traces from headquarters or getting approval to go ahead with his plan. Local informers and
support agents are sometimes picked up without reference to headquarters at all, except
perhaps after the fact of recruitment. The KGB officer must account with some precision,
however, for his operational expenditures and is usually quite limited in what he can spend
for development prior to coming up with a concrete proposal for recruiting a source.
Once an agent is recruited or is established as a source, headquarters' control and
demands for accountability are exacting, though never voluminous. For a recruited source with
significant access, a senior officer, such as a branch chief or his deputy is specifically
charged with responsibility for the case. Moscow's concern to insure that information is
really coming from the source as described by the case officer and that the source is bona
fide is very considerable. Somewhat by contrast, Moscow's requirements (outside of S&T
operations) sometimes seem quite general, apparently leaving it up to the case officer and
source to report what seems to them most important. On the other hand, reporting is expected
to be factual and documentary, if possible. Sometimes the KGB seems obsessed with documents
as the only reliable sources. Speculation is not usually encouraged.
In such a system of extreme compartmentation and vertical lines of communication and
authority, the advisory role of staffs and other elements not within the chain of command is
small. The First Chief Directorate, the foreign intelligence arm of the KGB, has a
counterintelligence unit, for example, that actually takes over a case from the regular chain
of command in the event that the agent appears to be doubled, compromised or in danger of
compromise. The field case officer may remain the same, but in Moscow the Counterintelligence
Service assumes full authority for directing the case. Deception and some types of complex
political action operations often appear to be run directly by the headquarters element,
Department A, that prepares the operation in Moscow. In such cases, of course, local assets
of a Rezidentura may well be employed in support, but the operations are frequently run by
specialists.
The typical KGB officer, trained in an environment where political agitation is part of
daily fare, sees political action and propaganda as part of his regular routine. There are
numerous examples of Soviet officers around the world who seem to concentrate almost
exclusively on pushing the Soviet line on the issues of the day with whatever contacts they
meet. To them the political approach is not something apart from spotting, developing,
assessing, recruiting and agent handling. It is integral to that effort. Some do it crudely,
some ineffectively, some with great skill. The point is that in almost all cases, it is a
part of the operation.
In addition to politics, KGB recruiting and training of staff personnel emphasizes
operational and area knowledge and experience from bottom to top. The main sources for new
KGB officers are the institutes of International Affairs and Eastern Languages in Moscow.
These institutions, which are better compared to the U.S. service academies than to other
organizations of higher learning in America, prepare young Soviet citizens for careers abroad
not only in the intelligence services, but for the foreign service, the Ministry of Foreign
Trade, Radio Moscow, etc. Assignment of a student after graduation is worked out among the
various consuming organizations. The students are under what amounts to military discipline
and are required to accept the assignment given them. Few students, see much difference among
the organizations these days except for differences in pay, length and location of overseas
service and other practical matters.
In the course of their education the students learn two or three foreign languages well
and study the history and culture of the area in which they specialize in considerable
detail, although current politics is likely tobe a much weaker course than history. Access to
native sources is still circumscribed. A substantial number of students go for a year or more
as exchange students or as trainees with Soviet organizations working abroad. As a result,
they often end up knowing the area, its language, its politics, customs, police systems,
local geography and so on very well. Although the old-style Soviet intelligence officer who
was raised in the shadow if not the institutions of the Komintern and could recruit agents
through appeals to an international revolutionary ideology are long since past, the newest
generation of Soviet intelligence officers can be quite effective by trading on their precise
knowledge of target personalities and the problems and frustrations of the countries in which
they operate.
A KGB officer is ranked in his service by two systems. He progresses up the ladder from
junior lieutenant to senior lieutenant and so on up to colonel and general. At the same time,
he is classified as a junior case officer, case officer or senior case officer and then as he
progresses further by his position, such as Rezident, which he may hold. His pay depends on
his ranking in both hierarchies and there is no necessary coincidence between where he stands
in one and where he stands in the other. The operational designations are based on his
experience and performance as an operator. His formal rank is largely based on length of
service up through major or lieutenant colonel. The chain of command is designated through
the operational positions rather than formal rank. For example, a major of State Security
from some other part of the KGB might be transferred into the First Chief Directorate under
the designation of junior case officer and find himself subordinate to a senior lieutenant
who had attained the position of case officer.
The phenomenon of marked disparity between formal rank and operational designation was
probably more common during the period of considerable expansion of the First Chief
Directorate's personnel ten and more years ago than it is today. At that time officers from
other branches of the service were being brought into the First Chief Directorate more
frequently than they are now. Nevertheless, the emphasis on operational experience and
operational ability continues to be a marked element of the KGB style. The top officers in
the service, for example, usually involve themselves directly in operations. They meet and
develop agent candidates, they recruit and they handle agents.
In part this is a consequence of the strongly operational orientation of the KGB as a
whole. A direct involvement in operations comes naturally to almost everyone in the
organization. This operational orientation is manifest also in the concentration of
relatively few cases per case officer. Generally, one man may handle four or five agents or
targets under development. He is not expected to spread his range of intelligence activities
further, although he may well be encouraged to develop a large circle of casual contacts from
whom a relatively small number of serious targets may be selected.
From the foregoing one can see that the typical KGB officer is a man who sees himself in a
strict vertical chain of command. He expects to do everything necessary for his operation
without much outside help, except in technical matters. Depending upon circumstances, the
case officer may be closely guided by the Rezident in a particular operation, but he is not
supposed to discuss it with anyone else. (Gossip and shop-talk are endemic, however, in part
to overcome the excessive official compartmentation.) Although the case officer is held
strictly to account for the results of his actions, he is not expected to report on
day-to-day developments to headquarters and in fact the capacity of his communications system
is far too limited to permit him to do so. He is street-oriented in the concept of his job
and does not put in a lot of time at the desk writing reports, reading guidance from
headquarters or maintaining his files. When he has a problem he takes it up with his boss and
he is generally not expected to have many problems. He is supposed to know the difference
between what he really needs consultation about and what he ought to be able to handle on his
own.
His boss in turn has the responsibility of not only guiding the case officers that work
for him, but of ensuring that vital information pertinent to the work of one case officer but
acquired through another is made available. In both operational guidance and information
sharing, the role of the Rezident is crucial. There is virtually no lateral distribution of
communications and an extreme emphasis on compartmentation. Although the rigid
compartmentation of the system is probably a major vulnerability, superiors both in the field
and headquarters are usually able to keep up with each case because they are not overwhelmed
with paper. Relatively primitive (in terms of capacity) communications equipment and the
custom that each officer prepare his own reports and keep them brief make it possible for
such reports as do get written to be read all the way up the chain of command. The general in
command of the First Chief Directorate has been reported on several occasions as reading all
the incoming traffic. Much of the outgoing traffic is also signed personally by him.
The strictness of the chain of command and the limited amount of communications place a
great weight of responsibility on each Rezident and on each case officer. As with all Soviet
officials, KGB case officers have a norm to fulfill for the year and are usually called to
account for their activities during part of the annual home leave in the Soviet Union. In a
system like that, if something goes wrong, someone must be found to have been responsible.
This can encourage an extreme of caution, particularly when the relations between case
officer and the Rezident are not of the best or when the headquarters desk officer is not
cooperative and understanding of the problems in the field.
Although we are accustomed to think of Soviet organizations as highly impersonal, in the
KGB personalities and the private connections of individual officers are often crucial to the
success or failure of an operation -- or a career. In many ways, the KGB is an organization
made to order for the man who wants to claim all the glory for himself and put all the
mistakes on the backs of his subordinates. Family connections or other personal contacts have
special significance in this sort of an organization because they can provide a secure and
effective second channel for communication in a system in which there is otherwise only one
narrow route watched over by jealous monitors for all the messages an officer may want to
send.
The emphasis on the role of the individual in the organization also has its advantages, of
course. A capable officer, particularly one from an influential family, working under a
Rezident who knows his business and will accept responsibility is likely to find himself in a
stimulating work environment that may compensate very well for shortcomings of the service or
the Soviet system as a whole that might otherwise disturb him.
While the KGB style as outlined above is in many ways admirably suited to running
operations, it appears to have limitations in the way it makes use of the product of its
operations and in evaluating whether the operations themselves are really worthwhile. There
are enough instances on record to permit the generalization that in political matters
especially Moscow is often reluctant to receive bad news. The ambitious case officer may find
himself frustrated by pressure to conform, either from his Rezident or from Moscow, when he
tries to report things as he sees them. To a large degree this is probably an inevitable
manifestation of the extreme isolation from the outside world in which the Soviet policy
makers live and their lack of exposure to unwelcome information. In addition, the emphasis on
operations as such and the overall environment of the KGB, which is predominantly an internal
security, criminal investigation, and antisubversive organization, probably discourages the
kind of critical intellect by whom frank reporting, regardless of its content, is most
prized.
This last consideration, the emphasis on an investigative, operational style at the
expense of analytical curiosity, may well be the source of considerable tension within the
First Chief Directorate today. Bigoted and inflexible ultimate consumers are problems enough.
But also the older generation of KGB officers, including many of today's Rezidenty, was
largely trained in war time and internal security operations. Their juniors, speaking
broadly, are more academically inclined, more tempted to discourse on their theories, more
interested in foreign societies and politics per se and less dedicated to fulfilling the
obligations of the party and the state. They are often perceptive and realistic about
developments not only abroad, but also in their own country. Bearing in mind the importance
of personal relations and the dependence of juniors on seniors in the rigid chain of command,
the signs we see these days of tension and cynicism among these younger officers should not
be surprising.
As they rise in the KGB, we may see some organizational changes over time. If these
changes preserve the laconic style of communication while at the same time do away with some
of the most cumbersome and archaic aspects of the communications and records keeping systems,
the KGB could become an even more formidable institution than it is today. The problem of
encouraging intelligence analysis and imaginative, critical thinking is a problem for Soviet
society as a whole. As a part of that society, the KGB shares the problem, but probably not
in greater degree than other Soviet institutions and possibly less than many.
Judgments about the influence the KGB style has on KGB officers as individuals, about the
implications for KGB operations of the way they do business, about the relevance of the style
to Western operations against Soviet targets, and about many other related matters lead us
beyond the scope of this note which, as stated in the introductory paragraph, hopes only to
raise an interesting topic for further comment. If this piece succeeds in making the point
that KGB organizational style is important to Western intelligence and that we should concern
ourselves with it more than we have, it will have served its purpose.
From Yeltsin to Putin: Chubais, Liberal Pathology, and Harvard's Criminal Record
Matthew Raphael Johnson
Johnstown, PAWhen the USSR collapsed in 1990-1991, Gorbachev was
incapable of handling thesituation. Boris Yeltsin came to power both bureaucratically and
popularly. He was named theChief of the Presidium, but in June of 1991, he was elected in a
popular election where heearned 57% of the popular vote.
With a small army of American advisers, Yeltsin began selling off Soviet era assets.The
problem was that the process had nothing to do with markets. Privatization of assets wentto a
handful of well-connected politicians and bureaucrats who came to control the economyas a
whole.1 They had amassed a huge number of shares by 1995, and hence, the post-Sovietoligarchy
was born. The fact is that the work of 70 years of Soviet labor went to the pocketsof two or
three dozen people.2
The rising oligarchs could easily manipulate the court system and tax police, sincethere was
no real law governing private enterprise. Russia was led to the brink of anarchy. By1998,
according to a paper by Sergei Guriev and Andrei Rachinsky, the oligarchs comprisedabout 700
individuals that completely controlled Russia's economic assets.3
The Western Elites and the Ivy League as a Criminal Syndicate
In NS Leonov's book
(only in Russian), The Way of the Cross: Russia from 1991-2000, he states, as the first
"reform" of Yeltsin's government :
Government "reforms" that began Gaidar's privatization scam was the seizure of the savings
of the people. These were taken by force, though not directly. Inflation and economic collapse
made the transfer of funds easy. State control was removed from prices and the "free market"
would ensure the enrichment of corruption. This was the level of cynicism the new democracy had
reached, while simultaneously preaching the sanctity of private property. What did not melt
away in the deliberate fleecing of the people was taken by other means. An estimate of the
total taken thisway is about 300 billion rubles, and it had the proper effect: without money,
rebellion was difficult. They cried out in frustration.4
Nothing was done according to democratic norms, which is odd since democracy was the
buzzword that made these economic decisions seem political. At almost no time in the history of
the USSR did one man, Chubais and his allies, have such total and irresponsible control over
the Russian economy. When the voucher program was introduced in 1992, massive inflation
resulted. Soon, each 10,000 ruble voucher was worth very little. It was rendered null
regardless, since the state refused to consider the vouchers as legal tender.
1 Hoffman, D. The Oligarchs: Wealth And Power In The New Russia. Public Affairs Books, 2011
(cf esp ch12).
2 Kotz, D.M. Russia's Financial Crisis: The Failure of Neoliberalism? Z Magazine, (1998),
28-32
4 Leonov, NS. The Way of the Cross: Russia from 1991-2000. Moscow: Russia House, 2002 (All
citations aremy translations from the Russian.
Making the entire scam even more blatant, Chubais inserted a rider to the law stating that
the value of the voucher would only exist until late 1993. In 1992, Yeltsin's popularity went
from 50% in January to 30% in August, and from there to single digits.
By July of 1992, Chubais was hated. This led Yeltsin to limit the power of parliament,
increase his executive power and totally dominate the regions. This was done with western
backing and was a far greater centralization of power than Putin was later to be condemned for.
He had already banned the Communist Party, helping to break his main opposition and prevent
their imminent reelection in Parliament. The fraud of democracy was clearly open.
Soon Chubais and his crew stated that there was no benchmark value for any sold property.
The institution in charge of this, the Russian Federal Property Fund and related agencies,
therefore, began from arbitrary benchmarks. Ultimately, major firms were being sold for 1-5% of
their value. Worse, some of these were defense plants, bought up by shallcompanies operates by
the CIA – this was Hay's job. Therefore, scientific advances of the USSR were now
entirely in American hands.
In 1992, Yeltsin did fairly well in a referendum, receiving about 50% approval, but at this
date, privatization had just begun. Elections a bit later were to belie this vote. Yeltsin
himself clearly had no confidence in this referendum. Having no confidence in that vote,
Yeltsin then, again with western backing, banned all opposition protests in Moscow. Then,
making matters worse, he signed order 1400 in September of 1993 which stripped the Congress of
People's Deputies of all power. For the upcoming elections, Yeltsin passed a law saying that
only 25% of voters needed to show for it to be valid. This was a means of making sure that
opposition boycotts could not win. Yeltsin soon after banned the main opposition newspaper.
Russia's privatization scam was created, directed and imposed by Harvard University and
carried out by two "professors" whose incompetence is rivaled only by their lack of
accountability. Anatoly Chubais, probably the most hated man in Russia, was an old friend of
Harvard "economist" Andrei Shleifer, who was also working with Harvard don Jonathan Hay (who
according to the FSB, is CIA). Chubais, functioning as a Russian dictator since Yeltsin was not
functional at the time, put the privatization scheme into Harvard's hands. Apparently having no
workable knowledge of Russian life, the Harvard elite, believing themselves infallible, quickly
proved their theories not only false, but directly responsible for ruining thelives of
millions.5
1994-1995 was the period of the solidification of the oligarchic clans, their connection
with the United States, and the complete collapse of the state. Oligarchic clans, created by
Chubais, filled the vacuum with private armies, political machines and newspapers. In the US,
conservative and liberal alike called this the "free market" and democracy. Vladimir
Zhirinovsky, of Jewish origin and endlessly changing political positions, became the
government's ace in the hole: whenever the US questioned the increasingly obvious destruction
of Russia, Yeltsin would trot this clown out to make some typically outrageous statement. In
1995, it was clear that Zhirinovsky both "loved Hitler" and was "proud" of Russia's victory in
the Great Patriotic War. Clearly in the pocket of Yeltsin, Zhirinovsky a)kept US aid money
coming into his efforts, b) siphoned off serious criticism, c) easily associated nationalist
views with this kind of rhetorical nonsense.
Chubais continued to hang onto power. Not being a Russian citizen (and yet having all that
power), he clearly equated the oligarchic clans as "democracy." In Davos, 1996, he met with the
heads of all the clans including Guzinsky, Berezovsky, Khodorkovsky, Friedman, Potanin and many
others, and formed a political movement designed to keep nationalist and communists out of
power.
This move shows that Chubais backed the oligarchs, did not consider them "unintended
consequences" and sought their assistance to stay in power: All in the name of democracy.
Yeltsin, now at 3% (with the same margin of error) began to implement populist measures, but
now was isolated. Winning a strangely high 33% of the vote in the 1996 elections, it can only
be attributed to a) electoral fraud, or b) the fact that Gen. Alexander Lebed had been talked
into entering a sort of coalition with Yeltsin. If they won, then Lebed's rival Pavel Grachev,
would be history. Yeltsin won the second round with just over 50%, as the oligarchs and Chubais
personally spend a small fortune bribing artists, journalists, writers and, making an even
worse mockery of democracy, busing thousands of urban youth into Moscow to ensure their
support.
Harvard's Sinister Role
Harvard University spent quite a bit of its money to
restructure Russia. The US government sued some of them, specifically, Andrei Shleifer, for
breach of contract. Many economists from Harvard worked for the State Department so as to be
able to control Russia for the better. The fraud of the Russian economy was in part blamed on
these advisers, whowere forced to pay more than $31 million to the US government for
"conspiracy to defraud."
Harvard had authored the plan that Gorbachev had requested to turn Russia into a capitalist
state. This was the plan that was enacted. The Harvard Institute for International Development
in Russia was the group created at Harvard and sponsored by the US government. This is what was
sued over. The US government argued that the reform program was a failure, and the planners,
living in America, knew it was a failure and continued to defend it – with taxpayer
money. Even worse, as it turns out, Shleifer was rigging some of the auctions himself,
investing his own money in firms that he knew would turn a profit, even if overseas.
The US Justice Department in 2000 sued, among others, Shleifer and Hay for defrauding the US
government. The Justice Department stated:
The United States alleges that Defendants' actions undercut the fundamental purpose of the
United States' program in Russia -- the creation of trust and confidence in the emerging
Russian financial markets and the promotion of openness, transparency, the rule of law, and
fair play in the development of theRussian economy and laws.6
Since they were using $40 million in taxpayer money, the cold-blooded desolation of Russia
implicated the US. The civil lawsuit argued, to simplify, that Harvard's economists, especially
Shleifer (and his wife), was investing taxpayer money in Russian companies about which they
were giving financial advice. Harvard admitted guilt in the form of a $25 million settlement.
How much of this assisted their victims in Russia is not known.7
In response to the suit, lawyers for Shleifer and his co-conspirator, Jonathan Hay, sneered
to the press: "We are confident that, as the civil case unfolds, the court will confirm that
the Harvard program significantly fostered Russian reform and that the government received its
money's worth." As it turns out, even their lawyers did not believe this, since their defense
rested, not on the denial that conflict of interest existed, but that they were never bound by
such ethical rules.8
6 "United States of America, Plaintiff v. the President and Fellows of Harvard College,
Andrei Shleifer, Jonathan Hay, Nancy Zimmerman, and Elizabeth Hebert, Defendants" (2000)
7 His crimes and the full nature of the lawsuit and evidence can be found here: Wedel, J.
Who Taught CronyCapitalism to Russia? How Harvard and the 'U.S. Government's Aid Agency
became part of the RussianProblem. The Wall Street Journal Europe, March 19, 2001
In 2005, a federal judge found Shleifer guilty of professional fraud. The disgraced
"professor" paid the US government $2 million, and his wife, operating yet another scam,
settled out of court for $1.5 million. Harvard paid about $10 million in legal fees to defend
their role in the starvation of Russia.9
For all that, Shleifer remains a celebrated professor at Harvard and the toast of academia
worldwide. His academic stock has not suffered in theleast from this. Just as puzzling, Harvard
suffered no diminution in prestige. This is especially puzzling in that ivy league scandals
erupt seemingly on a daily basis. This Teflon world exists partly due to the protection of
former Harvard President, World Bank economist and Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers, also a
pivotal figure in the Russian fiasco.10
Summers is partly to blame for the American sub-prime mortgage disaster since hewas pivotal
in removing many of the regulatory barriers that forbade predatory lendingpractices. Therefore,
the execrable Summers is the co-author of not one but two national meltdowns. Summers,
after being forced to resign from Harvard based on an unrelated set of sins,11 was quickly
rehired as a "professor" by the government. Then, Summers became a leading figure in Obama's
economic brain trust, was soon after appointed as part of the "oversight"panel for the UN's
economic programs and became a member of the Group of 30, a highlyelite and secretive
organization created by the Rockefeller family.
Like Summers and Shleifer, Chubais was also handsomely rewarded for his direct role in the
Russian cataclysm. He was soon placed on the board of JP Morgan, and, to no one's surprise, was
granted a seat on the ultra-elite Council on Foreign Relations, another powerful conclave
within the Rockefeller cult.12
Summer's career, his almost comic legacy of failure and ignorance, and the criminal
impoverishment of Russia (not to mention the 2007 US meltdown) wholly destroy the "elitestatus"
of places like Harvard.13 This set of scandals, largely unknown to a bewildered and exhausted
American public, shows the profound and pervasive putrescence of academia, especially in the
Ivy leagues. It brought into question academic tenure, unearned salaries, and the famed
academic insulation from consequences arising from their theories. The Harvard civil suit and
all it entails demonstrates the incompetence of those paid to implement policy and their
ability to get their hands on taxpayer money. It shows a reprehensible and reckless disregard
for the welfare of others that is rewarded with academic posts, social prestige, ostentatious
wealth and immense power.
It might be worth mentioning that the behavior patters of Chubais conforms almost perfectly
to the Triarchic diagnostic model of psychopathy as developed by Skeem, et al in 2011. First,
it is typified by a pathological arrogance. The victim has full confidence that he is above the
law, or that the law only applies to others. Second, the victim shows an impulsive and
anti-social temper that focuses only on short term gratification based on the lowest motives.
Because of these two symptoms, the victim either does not perceive or does not have any
restraints on his destructive behavior. Finally, and most significantly, the victim feels no
remorse for the consequences of his actions. Other criteria related to these includeparasitic
behavior, superficial charm, grandiosity, ingenious criminal ideas, and assertive narcissism.14
Yeltsin, quoted in Leonov's book, called Chubais "an absolute Bolshevik by temperament and
mentality." The basic consensus about Chubais' behavior is that he cared little for
construction, and only for destruction.
8 Seward, Z. Harvard To Pay $26.5 Million in HIID Settlement. Crimson, July 20059 The
guilty verdict and settlement issues are summarized in the Crimson article above.
10 Finucane, M "Feds Sue Harvard over Russia Advisers." ABD News; also see Wedel, Janine
R. The HarvardBoys Do Russia. The Nation, 2008; and "Larry Summers, Robert Rubin: Will The
Harvard Shadow EliteBankrupt The University And The Country?" The Huffington Post, Jan 2010:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harry-r-lewis/larry-summers-robert-rubi_b_419224.html
11 These had something to do with comments about intellectual differences between men and
women. That this contrived controversy erupted just as Harvard was paying off the federal
government is no coincidence.
12 Levy, Ari. Summers Joins Andreessen Horowitz as a Part-Time Adviser to Entrepreneurs.
Bloomberg, June2011 and Greenwald, Glenn. Larry Summers, Tim Geithner and Wall Street's
ownership of government.Salon, 2009
13 As far as ivy league fraud and incompetence go, this is just one scandal out of
hundreds.
The political lesson of this is unfortunate: the diagnostic criteria for criminal
psychopathy are precisely the qualities required for success in big business and government.
Even the best intentioned politician or businessman must display some combination of thesevices
in order to successfully compete in these fields. What passes as virtue in libera lcapitalism
is actually an undisguised form of mental illness.
Leonov speaks in more detail about his pathology:
Evil lurks in Chubais' colorless eyes. He arrogantly uses his supporters in public.
Assertiveness and phony composure is his cynical way. Yeltsin was seen by him as merely
manageable. Yeltsin was easy to manipulate due to his unpopularity. He did not have the
intellectual wherewithal to fight back. He was compliant and signed anything on cue. He saw
the Duma as mere formalism that can be bypassed. In reality, he just relied on Presidential
decrees.
Of course, all of this in the name of democracy. Rather than deal with the fallout for the
sins of others, Yeltsin did one excellent thing for Russia – appointed Vladimir Putin
astemporary president on new year's eve, 1999. As was proper, Putin guaranteed Yeltsin immunity
from prosecution, which meant he could no longer be used as a scapegoat. Putin, to make a long
story very short, brought Russia from a GDP that was 98th in the world to 2014,where it is 8th.
For the period 1991-1997, the transfer of wealth from Russia to the oligarchs was roughly $1.75
trillion. This was not "lost" to Russia, since wealth is not "lost." It merely changed hands.
Under Chubais and Harvard, the economic contracted by almost 90%.
For all that, Yeltsin's party received 15% of the vote. With instructions from the US,
Yeltsin, after this humiliation, created the idea of a "consensus document." The point is to
create the illusion of agreement. Several western NGOs designed a position paper which
supported "free market" reforms. Representatives of the new rich in Russia signed this
document, which was then trumpeted as proof of social cohesion around Yeltsin.
Bernard Black et al, writing in 2009, described the devastation of this shock treatment
for Russia and Ukraine in 1994:Russia's mass privatization. . . permitted insiders (managers
and controlling shareholders) to engage in extensive "self" or "inside" dealing. . . which
the government did nothing to control. Later privatization "auctions" were a massive giveaway
of Russia's most important companies at bargain prices to a handful of well-connected
"kleptocrats". . . Medium-term prospects are grim; the Russian ruble has plunged; the Russian
government has defaulted on both its dollar denominated and ruble-denominated debt; most
banks are bankrupt; corruption is rampant; tax revenues have collapsed; capital flight is
pervasive; and the government (whomever the Prime Minister happens to be at the moment) seems
clueless about what to do next.15
14 Skeem, JL, Polaschek, DLL, Patrick, CJ, and S Lilienfeld. Psychopathic Personality:
Bridging the GapBetween Scientific Evidence and Public Policy. Psychological Science in the
Public Interest 12 (3): 95–1622011
15 Black, et al, 1
This scheme represents one of the most luridly thoroughgoing, colossal and overwhelming
failures in economic history. The role of the US government, international financial agencies
and elite academia in this monumental disaster is well known. During the well publicized
destruction and starvation of Russia, the British journal Euromoney named Chubais the
"Worlds Greatest Finance Minister," as yet another means of displaying theelite's lack of
accountability. In the Financial Times of 2004, A. Ostrovsky states "Chubais makes no
excuses and feels no remorse over the most controversial privatization of all - the
'loans-for-shares' deal, in which he handed control of Russia's largest and most valuable
assets to the group of tycoons [sic] in return for loans and support in the 1996 election for
the then ailing Yeltsin."16
Once this became plain, the architects of the plan backed off, blaming everyone else for the
issues. He writes in Foreign Affairs that the "Russian people" must vote for "democracy" in the
2000 elections. At the time, his own popularity was running about 2-3%. Hence, he did not mean
"democracy" in the normal sense of the word. The real change was between 1994-1996. Here, the
oligarchs were openly ruling with Yeltsin, who was often drunk and would disappear for weeks on
end. It didn't matter. The oligarchs bought up most of the banks, then issued licenses to trade
internationally that only they could have. As the government got desperate, the oligarchs
stepped in and loaned Moscow the money to continue to function. Russian was not a "government"
in any sense of the word. About 700 major families controlled almost the entire Russian economy
and hence, the state as well.
The Results of the Scam
Government revenues went down by over 50% in this same
time. Wages went down by about 75% by 1998. In 1992, the inflation rate was almost 1000%. Light
industry, that is, the consumer sector, lost about 90% of its capital, the hardest hit sector
of all. Machinery of all kinds fell by about 75%, meaning that 75% of the machines useful in
the Russian economy had been liquidated (or were just not used) by 1998. The only thing that
kept Russiaafloat was the black market.17
The state could no longer enforce its laws, and hence, men started not showing up for the
draft. Republic after republics declared independence, to be immediately recognized by the US.
So, what can we conclude here? Very few deny that Yeltsin was a failure, but a failure of the
worst kind. This kind of economic destruction has never been seen before outside of warfare.
Government revenues and expenditures collapsed, hence, an already bad infrastructure was made
far worse. Believe it or not, from 1992-1999, the Russian government collected about $6 billion
all told. Hence, the state did not function.
Interest rates were high, about 300% in 1994, so credit was available only to the very rich,
who controlled the (now private) central bank in the first place. Nearly everyoligarchical bank
was connected with organized crime. In fact, there is no substantial difference between the
oligarchs and organized crime.18
Under the oligarchs, tax collection collapsed. Industrial production went down by 25% in
just a few years. By 1997, Russia had defaulted on its debts. Between 1991 and 1998,Russian GDP
fell by almost 40%. Life expectancy went down from 68 to 56 years. Russians became
impoverished. Money was so scarce that, by 1996, most trade was done through barter.
Importantly, these oligarchs became a state within a state. Tax collection had collapsed, and
the new Russia was completely broke. With the Asian meltdown in 1998, interest rates for
Russian borrowing went to 300%. 19
16 Arkady Ostrovsky, Father to the Oligarchs. Financial Times, 2004.
17 Graham, Thomas. From Oligarchy to Oligarchy: The Structure of Russia's Ruling Elite.
Demokratizatsiya7(3), (1997) 325-340
18 ibid
Yeltsin's popularity by 1998 went to about zero. Since then, pro-western (that is, pro
freemarket) parties have polled no more than 5-7% of the vote combined. Yeltsin resigned the
Presidency in 1999 and appointed Vladimir Putin as president.
A man of immense mental and physical strength, he sought to discipline the oligarchs,
rebuild Russia and create a modern economy. As soon as Putin took office, he went after the
media monopoly of Vladimir Guzinsky. Soon, numerous oil firms and banks were investigated for
tax fraud. Some oligarchs fled the country, others like Mikhail Khordokovsky, ended up in
prison. Attempting to split the oligarchs, playing one fraction against another, Putin's
popularity soared, and Russian economic growth recovered.20 Since the meltdown in 1998, the
Russian economy has gone from $1 trillion to $2.5 trillion by 2011. Growth rates remain high,
and Russia enjoys both a trade and budget surplus. In the first eight years of Putin's
presidency, the Russian GDP increased by over 75%.
Near the end of 1993, about 18-20 billion rubles had fled the country. As 1994 dawned, the
population was impoverished. Malnutrition was becoming a problem, and alcoholism was
increasing, as was suicide and all manner of social pathology. By 1994, thedeputy interior
minister, Vladimir Kozlov, stated that about 40% of the economy is nowcriminalized. Leonov
writes,
V. Polevanov [deputy prime minister at the time] notes that the total nominal valueof the
voucher fund (about $1.5 trillion rubles) was 20 times less than the cost fixed assets
industry, fired up for auction. One Moscow, where privatization was notcarried out on the
residual and by market value, gained 20% of the enterprises 1.8 trillion rubles, while income
from the rest of Russia in the first two years of privatization amounted to only $1 trillion
rubles.
The above argument is abstract. In this section, a case study will be analyzed in detail to
show how these forces come to be, how they operate, and how they attempt to insulate themselves
from its consequences. Traumatic economic events do not occur due to abstract or impersonal
forces. People, very powerful people, create the conditions that destroy entire economies.
Economic self-interest is the engine of these irrational policies. Economics depicts social
actors and institutions as calculating machines with no identity or purpose. The result is that
economics is always treated in the passive voice, which is a fundamental mystification.
The Second Half of the 1990s
Showing Chubais complete rejection of supporting
Russian interests, Leonov writes,
Soon, it became clear that Chubais committed his sins only because he was controlled by
others. The real owners of Russia. In 1998, Russia was continuing to disaster, that is, total
bankruptcy. At this point, even after the default, American investors finally got the message
and moved their cash out of Russian securities. This strengthened the effect of the default. As
he became CEO of RAO (etc), he sold to foreigners a 32% chunk of Russian energy concerns, which
violated all Russian laws. This meant, of course, that foreigners now could block Russian
energy policy.
Chubais and his Harvard friends did not believe in their own rhetoric. Their had quickly
moved into the most luxurious apartments and appointed to themselves very high salaries.
Nothing about their world was based on the market principles they hypocriticallyadvocated.
While advocating the rule of law, the oligarchical firms allied with Chubais werenot paying
taxes; but it just so happens that the criminal code recently passed did not considerthis a
crime. In 1997, there was no question that Chubais was evading taxes as well.
19 Ibid, cf esp 330-332
20 Sakwa, R. Putin and the Oligarchs. New Political Economy, 13(2) (2008): 185-191
Admitting his guilt, he paid about 500 million rubles, which was just a small amount of what
he owed. His power did not diminish, but it remains a fact that no dictator in Russian history
had the power that Chubais had. In the name of market reform and the rule of law,Chubais was
receiving millions from shall companies for non existent services. Alexander Lebed remained the
sole source of opposition to Chubais once Yeltsin sought treatment for heart illness. Chubais,
realizing the general's recent spike in popularity for negotiating successfully with Chechen
rebels, invented a slew of charges that the general conspired with these same militants.
Chubais had become so powerful that he was no longer required to be creative. Lebed was
dismissed from his post, proving that Chubais was, in fact, a dictator.21
In the name of the rule of law, Chubais made mafia gangster Boris Berezovsky "deputy
director of the security council." Potanin, another underworld billionaire, was named "Deputy
Prime Minister." Chubais was rubbing Russia's face in his power, typical of thepsychotic. Soon,
all major television channels were in the hands of two mafia dons, Berezovsky and Guzinsky.
Leonov writes:
By 1996, all the financial power was concentrated in the hands of a small group of
businessmen almost exclusively Jewish. It consisted of Boris Berezovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky,
Alexander Smolensky, Pyotr Aven, Boris Chait, and Vitaly Malkin. Major bankers also included
gentiles Potanin and Vinogradov, the only two.
Since the state had collapsed, these oligarchs acted as the state treasury and profited from
it. Billions continued to be looted and wound up in banks in Israel, Britain and the US. Yet,
elections were coming up. An ailing Yeltsin dismissed Chernomyrdin's "government," which
included Chubais. Boris Berezovsky began, in his words, to rally all the "democraticand
reformist forces in Russia" to prevent his own possible dispossession.
Typical of the psychotic, these men knew no limits. They began issuing high yield junk
bonds, eventually promising to pay out, in some cases, 180%. Foreigners were buying these bonds
to the point where almost 30% of all marketable securities of the Russian "state"were owned by
outsiders. It was another scam, and the bankers refused to pay anypercentage, and even more,
demanded the return of Chubais to government. Chubais quicklyflew to Washington, warning of a
communist-nationalist resurgence. $6 billion was quickly given, which was never seen again.
Forming a shadow government, Russia's bankers dictated terms to Yeltsin. In their
generosity, they agreed to not demand immediate debt payment from the Russian taxpayer. Yet, to
punish Yeltsin, this oligarchy declared that it will reduce the sale of foreign currency.
Putting downward pressure on the ruble, the oligarchs got their revenge for the tepid rebellion
of Yeltsin. This is what drove the junk bonds as high as 180%; the ruble was suddenly worth
nothing. In fear, Yeltsin put the banker's friend, Chernomyrdin, back in power in late summer,
1998.22
21 Ostrovsky, Arkady. Father to the Oligarchs. Financial Times, 2004
22 Russian Federation: Selected Issues 2012 International Monetary Fund IMF Country Report
No. 12/218http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2012/cr12218.pdf and Oliker, O, and T.
Paley. Assessing Russia's
As typical of capitalist democracies, the political clique took the fall for the private
sector. Yeltsin was blamed for the disaster, though his power was nil. That winter, Russia
froze with millions unable to buy fuel. The perfect man was chosen for the prime ministership,
Yevgeny Primakov, with no apparent beliefs of any kind. Quickly, Primakov demanded the return
of Chubais and others who caused the mess, in order to repair it.
The default that August destroyed any bank not immediately under the oligarchs. GDPfell by
200-300 billion rubles. Industry was devastated. In one month, September of 1998, the average
Russian income fell by over 30%. The Federation Council, too late, officially declared Chubais
and crew as "negligent and incompetent." At the same time, the banking oligarchy was
speculating in currency markets, making a profit estimated at the time of 5.5billion rubles in
1997.
Bill Clinton at the time cared only about the possibility of the Lebed coup. Primakov,
however, began to strengthen the state as the only possibly solution to the total dissolution
of Russia as a political entity. Soon, the dependable Zhirnovsky was again trotted out, with
the occasional spray painted swastika to re-direct attention and create the "extremist" threat.
More political groups, heretofore unknown, showed up in Moscow with strange uniforms and
rallies. Gaidar was quick to link them with the communists, creating a convenient, single group
for the masses to visualize.
In the midst of the meltdown, the system took advantage of the perfectly timed murder of
Galina Starovoitova, a westernizing politician. 15,000 members of the opposition were rounded
up and the "democratic forces" demanded emergency powers. The westenizers even created their
own "nationalist" political group, "Fatherland" in order to siphon off opposition activists. In
a display showing excellent acting, Yeltsin, in December of 1998, disbanded the group as a
"threat" to "democracy." Of course, western Russia experts breathed a sigh of relief that
"fascism" was not coming to Russia.
Solzhenitsyn refused to be a part of the charade, refusing to accept the Medal of St. Andrei
from Yeltsin. A long time nationalist, Solzhenitsyn realized that in giving this award, Yeltsin
was currying favor. Another misdirection was the attempted impeachment of Yeltsin in 1998, as
if he was in charge of the disaster he only vaguely understood. Like the Clinton impeachment,
it was an absurdity, deliberately designed to protect those with actual power (that is, the
private sector) who created the disaster. The Commission decided that Yeltsin had "exceeded his
power" as president, as if this is the reason why Muscovites just froze the previous winter.
Using political figures to cover for the banking cartel is as old as the Medicis in Florence.
Then, in another mockery of Russia, Yeltsin was blamed 100% for the disaster ofthe previous
decade.23
Given all this, you are now ready to understand Putin. He came to power as Premier under
Yeltsin when the latter resigned in 1999. Yeltsin's popularity rating was between 3-5%. All aid
from the IMF was stolen and funneled into the hands of the oligarchs. Oil and gas firms had
their profits pocketed in the same way, tax free. As Yeltsin retired, he gave many of his
friends immunity from prosecution.
Putin as the Restorer of Sanity
Putin's leadership restored confidence in the
currency, the state and the law. Oligarchystill exists in Russia (as elsewhere), but the
monopoly position they used to wield is no more.Russian oil firms have come under the control,
though not the ownership, of the state, sinceoligarchs were planning on selling assets to
Exxon-Mobil, which led to the "KhordokovskyDecline. The Rand Corporation,
2002http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monograph_reports/2007/MR1442.pdf23 Guriev, S.
and Andrei Rachinsky (2005). The Role of Oligarchs in Russian Capitalism. Journal of
EconomicPerspectives, 19(1), (2005) 131-150
http://pages.nes.ru/sguriev/papers/GurievRachinsky.pdfaffair." Mikhail Khordokovshy was an
oligarch who controlled YUKOS, one of Russia's mostpowerful oil firms. In the interest of
national security, Putin placed Khordokovsky under arrest. He was indeed guilty of tax evasion,
but his plans to see Russian strategic assets to Americans was too much for Putin to stomach.
The more oligarchs Putin put in jail, the more popular he becomes.
Putin's policy has been to tread softly, taking on only the most powerful and obnoxious of
the oligarchs. He has made strategic alliances with some in order to intimidate others While
Russia has been rebuilt and the state became powerful, the oligarchs still have fight left in
them, and Putin acts cautiously. Putin's basic approach has been to guide investment and
control the flow of investment funds so they benefit Russia, not the oligarchy. The state does
not own the economy, but it does oversee it. The oligarchy gave Putin no other choice.
The oligarchs financed all of Yeltsin's election campaigns and public image in Russia at the
time. The point was to keep Yeltsin in power long enough so that the oligarchs could get their
cash out of the country. They knew that eventually, a popular government would punish them.
Putin, to a great extent, was this punishment.
Putin created an entirely new Russian government, when local districts under his control.
Needless to say, the regional governments had been bought, and Putin could have no dealings
with them. Some of them even had their own foreign policy! All those sent to govern the regions
were from the security services or the army. This was no accident. Putin restructured the Upper
House (the Federation Council) so as to permit his government to have a say in who gets
appointed to it. 24
Putin insisted that local law must be consistent with federal law. This is because local
leaders were creating their own countries, and this could not stand. Putin then permitted
oligarchs and their puppets to be tried as violators of the constitution. Let me give you one
example. In 2003, the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky had taken over the Russian oil giant Yukos.
Now, Putin got intelligence that Khodorkovsky was planning on entering intobusiness with
Exxon-Mobil, permitting their penetration into the Russian market. Realizing this was a
security threat (which it was, since it would mean that Exxon would control much of Russia's
oil), he had Khodorkovsky arrested. Is list of crimes was well known, but the stategot him on
taxes, which was a no-brainier. Putin was immediately attacked or "authoritarianism" by the
press in the west.
So why does the west heap abuse on this man?
He reformed the tax code, putting in place a 13% flat tax on all income and investments.
About half of regional prosecutors were removed from their positions due toe xtreme corruption.
All Russians knew that already. He quickly ended the war in Chechnya, making sure a Chechen,
pro-Russian government was put in charge.
He brought together the top 13 oligarchical families to a conference he organized. He told
them that their rule was over. He forced them to pay millions in back taxes to the state, and
to create several important charitable funds with their stolen money.
He was going to use the state to pressure their media into being more objective, pro-Russian
and pro-state. Since the oligarchs controlled the press, it made sense that this had to be
fought. To call this "assaulting press freedom" is absurd.
He realized that the political opposition in Russia was created by the oligarchy. Hence,
there was no actual party development. Few parties had an agenda (except the communists, who
did well), and these were mostly personal vehicles for their founders.
Putin also shifted investment away from oil and towards higher end items. This was needed to
diversify the economy. The judiciary is independent. Today, about 70% of people who sue the
state for various reasons win. Putin also introduced the jury.25
24 Sakwa, R. Putin and the Oligarchs. New Political Economy, 13(2), (2008), 185-191
It's tough to argue with Putin's success:
Labor productivity grew 49 percent 1995-2005, ranging from a 23 percent improvement in
retailing to a 73 percent rise in construction. Total factor productivity grew by 5.8 percent
per year, and the World Bank estimates that only one third of that increase came from increased
capacity utilization. Firm turnover (i.e. the exit of inefficient firms and the entry of new
ones) accounts for half the total improvement. Stock market capitalization rose to 44 percent
of GDP by 2005, while the RTS index went from 300 in 2000 to 2,360 in December 2007.
In September 2006 the market capitalization of the 200 biggest firms was $833 billion (one
third of which was Gazprom). The percent of the population living in poverty fell from 38
percent in 19998 to 9.5 percent in 2004, and the share of family budgets spent on food fell
from 73% in 1992to 54% in 2004.
The only macroeconomic indicator that gives cause for concern is inflation, which dropped
from 20 percent in 2000 to 9 percent in2006, before creeping back up to 11-12 percent
level.26
Now, "market capitalization" and other such elite measures are not the whole story. They can
exist with an economy failing in other respects. However, before wealth can b eredistributed,
it has to exist. Accumulating what can then be redistributed are what these numbers are telling
us. Given all this, however, it should come as no surprise that those who are condemning Putin
today backed the privatization deals 20 years ago.
W. Thompson, writing in the Guardian in the Summer of 2003, states:
Fiscal consolidation has probably contributed more than any other single factor to
restoring the authority and legitimacy of the formerly bankrupt state. Exceptionally
favorable economic circumstances account for much of this improvement, but so also do better
expenditure management, the reform of tax legislation and more efficient administration. The
state's rule-making capacity has also grown markedly.
Unlike Yeltsin, Putin has a compliant parliament and presides over a government that, for
all its internal divisions, is not riven by the factional conflicts that marked the 1990s.
The result has been a flood of new legislation, much of it directly concerned with state
reconstruction.27
Thompson speaks the truth. "Exceptionally favorable economic circumstances "can not cause
national success. They do not in Ukraine, much of Africa or Detroit. They must be identified
and utilized with substantial skill. Circumstances, of themselves, tell us nothing. The
"compliant parliament" exists because of Putin's popularity, though Thomas seems to suggest
that such legislative cooperation is required in times of emergency. Worried about bureaucratic
corruption, Putin passed several laws limiting the discretionary power of federal agencies.
Reform has reduced corruption, endemic at onepoint. Business is much easier to accomplish.
Putin's reelection numbers roughly mirror his popularity in the country, and his opposition,
backed by the US, has no agenda whatsoever.
25 Lavelle, P Putin's "Authoritarianism" vs. the "Commentariat". Commentary,
2004ahttp://www.futurebrief.com/peterlavelle004.asp and Lavelle, P Russia's Economic Future.
Commentary,2004 http://www.futurebrief.com/peterlavelle.asp
26 Rutland, P. Putin's Economic Record. Wesleyan University, CT, 2008
As of January 1 of this 2013, Russia's anti-bribery legislation is the toughest in the
world. In Russia, about 92% of American businesses think that Russian investment is a good
thing, and that Russia is a decent place to do business. The IMF has stated that part of
Putin's success is is utilization of capital that was left idle. Utilization of the country's
resources has increased from about 50% in 2000 to over 76% today. But in order to do this, he
needed to destroy the power of the oligarchs at the regional level.
Conclusion
The simple fact is that Putin's authoritarianism was forced upon him.
He did use a heavy hand, but not nearly as heavy as Yeltsin. He realized that it was either a
strong hand or chaos. As the state has been rebuilt, so have oversight bodies empowered to
check it'sbehavior. Putin launched a bunch of commissions to look into corruption in different
areas o the country, knowing full well that his popularity is based on that, plus economic
growth.Putin needed to increase the potential of the state before the state itself could grow.
Hence,the reformation of all police agencies gave them a direct line to the Kremlin, but, by
2002,crime was still rife. Now, all that has changed.
It makes sense to call Putin a reaction to Yeltsin, chaos and oligarchy. His policies make
no sense without the background. Things appear differently when contrasted with the free-fall
collapse of the Yeltsin years.
Putin then did two things: first, to build up the rudiments of a new state, one that can
permit business to thrive and destroy oligarchy. He needed a new law code, more centralized
structures and an end to regional independence. Second, he was to create a new macroeconomic
structure, with strong fiscal and oversight measures. Russia now runs a trade and budget
deficit. He then stabilized the currency.
Once economic growth took off, he tried to get as much money out of foreign banks as
possible. He first backed big business (for the sake of growth), then shifted more recently to
backing smaller business. He then engaged in education and pension reform. He turned Russia to
the east, allying with China to cooperate in their tremendous economic growth.
It is easy to forget that all that Putin is "blamed" for was suggested by western elites for
Yeltsin. Liberal democracy in the eastern bloc has, without exception, merely been a cover for
the most cynical sort of exploitation. In the name of "democracy" the eastern bloc melted into
the bank accounts of both foreign and local elites. Warlords developed with private armies
that, in the 1990s, were the subject of some journalistic treatment. A Russia in collapse is
far more dangerous for the west than anything Putin has dreamed about.
Rationally, the enforced, rehearsed and studied contempt of Putin can only exist because the
west had other plans for Russia, as a hinterland for cheap, educated labor and resources.
Western collapse is assured precisely because Russia is not prostrate and under the thumb of
Exxon-Mobil. Putin will have the last laugh, which, when the smoke clears, is the only real
cause of the west's irrational hatred.
"... In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by inflaming its ethnic tensions. ..."
"... State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea "that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007, pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the Soviet Union ..."
''Establishment in saturated with neocons and likes. They are the swamp. ''
The locust keep trying and trying, destruction is their life's work.
'1977-1981: Nationalities Working Group Advocates Using Militant Islam Against Soviet
Union'
In 1977 Zbigniew Brzezinski, as President Carter's National Security Adviser, forms
the Nationalities Working Group (NWG) dedicated to the idea of weakening the Soviet Union by
inflaming its ethnic tensions. The Islamic populations are regarded as prime targets.
Richard Pipes, the father of Daniel Pipes, takes over the leadership of the NWG in 1981.
Pipes predicts that with the right encouragement Soviet Muslims will "explode into genocidal
fury" against Moscow. According to Richard Cottam, a former CIA official who advised the
Carter administration at the time, after the fall of the Shah of Iran in 1978, Brzezinski
favored a "de facto alliance with the forces of Islamic resurgence, and with the Republic of
Iran." [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 241, 251 - 256]
'November 1978-February 1979: Some US Officials Want to Support Radical Muslims to Contain
Soviet Union'
State Department official Henry Precht will later recall that Brzezinski had the idea
"that Islamic forces could be used against the Soviet Union. The theory was, there was an arc
of crisis, and so an arc of Islam could be mobilized to contain the Soviets." [Scott, 2007,
pp. 67] In November 1978, President Carter appointed George Ball head of a special White
House Iran task force under Brzezinski. Ball recommends the US should drop support for the
Shah of Iran and support the radical Islamist opposition of Ayatollah Khomeini. This idea is
based on ideas from British Islamic expert Dr. Bernard Lewis, who advocates the balkanization
of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. The chaos would spread in
what he also calls an "arc of crisis" and ultimately destabilize the Muslim regions of the
Soviet Union
Yes, US was the first country to proudly deliver Manpads to be used by "rebels" (Mojahadin
later Taleban) against USSR in Afghanistan back in 80s. And, as per the architect of support
for the rebels (Zbigniew Brzezinski) very proud of it with no regret. With that in mind, I
don't see how western politicians, the western governments and their related proxy war
planers, will be regretting, even sadden, once god forbid we see passenger planes with loved
ones are shot down taking off or landing at various western airports and other places around
the word. Just like how superficialy with crocodile tears in their eyes they acted in
aftermath of the terrorist events in various western cities in this past 16 years. Gods knows
what will happens to us if the opposite side start to supply his own proxies with lethal anti
air weapons. "Proudly", I don't think anybody in west cares or will regret of such an
escalation.
"... Actually an interesting metamorphose happen right at the border crossing. A crook instantly became the staunch defender of western democracy and its (aka neoliberal) values against Russian backwardness, paranoia and kleptocratic state headed by evil Putin who personally torture innocent girls from Pussy Riot wearing his old KGB uniform ..."
"... BTW I would object about the term "Stubborn Deniers of Reality" applied to Western Journalism. I think a more proper definition is "Creators of artificial reality". Masters of illusion, so to speak. And that's would be a proper classification of Bachelor and Masters degree in journalism instead of "Bachelor of arts", etc. used today. And truth be told this esoteric art reached the level of perfection and sophistication in comparison with which all those circus magicians are just children. ..."
Actually an interesting metamorphose happen right at the border crossing. A crook instantly
became the staunch defender of western democracy and its (aka neoliberal) values against Russian
backwardness, paranoia and kleptocratic state headed by evil Putin who personally torture
innocent girls from Pussy Riot wearing his old KGB uniform :-)
I would call this sudden attraction to democratic values at the border crossing a "crooks
survival instinct" in action. Crooks are always crooks.
BTW I would object about the term "Stubborn Deniers of Reality" applied to Western Journalism.
I think a more proper definition is "Creators of artificial reality". Masters of illusion, so to
speak. And that's would be a proper classification of Bachelor and Masters degree in journalism
instead of "Bachelor of arts", etc. used today. And truth be told this esoteric art reached the
level of perfection and sophistication in comparison with which all those circus magicians are
just children.
BTW who would explain to me the meaning of the term of BS in English. Is this about deception,
or an attempt to cover own incompetence (posturing as an expert in subject about which the BS
artist has no clue) or about pure propaganda or about meaningless drivel designed to hide the
real motives ?
"... So, albeit the USSR registered up to 17% of GDP spending on the "military" (as some sources claim) -- you have to take it with a grain of salt. ..."
"... Another problem with this "too much military" theory is the logic behind it. During the 50s and 60s, the USSR was also spending a lot on the military, but it didn't stop it growing 15%-10% yoy ..."
"... It was only after the mid-70s, when the USSR begun to stagnate (it never had a recession), that the military spending theorists begun to sprout. The question is the same about the ill fate of the welfare state in Western Europe in the end of the 70s: which came first, the egg or the chicken. Putting it in another way: was it the Soviet was spending that caused its long stagnation or was it its long stagnation that made its military spending look big? ..."
The war hawks in my beloved country are the Soviet Politburo clamoring for a larger army,
navy, air force to be equipped with the most expensive weaponry. Back in the 80's the
Soviet Union had an army of 5M, they it is less than 1M and is purely defensive. We on the
other hand have built up our Defense Budget to epic levels and have consultant after
consultant telling us that it is at an all time low.
- Posted by: Christian Chuba | Mar 1, 2018 4:14:46 PM | 20
The USSR had deeper problems than that.
It's not that the Soviet expenditure with the military was a problem. On the opposite: the
Soviet were very familiar with the concept of dual industry, them being the masters of WWII.
Many industries in the USSR that were officially military were actually civilian: the most
colorful example being the airplane industry, which could produce either civilian or military
aircraft. Another example: the USSR was the biggest agriculture tractor producer in the world
at one point. These tractors were produced in the same industrial plants as the one used to
produce battle tanks. So, albeit the USSR registered up to 17% of GDP spending on the
"military" (as some sources claim) -- you have to take it with a grain of salt.
Another problem with this "too much military" theory is the logic behind it. During
the 50s and 60s, the USSR was also spending a lot on the military, but it didn't stop it
growing 15%-10% yoy .
It was only after the mid-70s, when the USSR begun to stagnate (it never had a
recession), that the military spending theorists begun to sprout. The question is the same
about the ill fate of the welfare state in Western Europe in the end of the 70s: which came
first, the egg or the chicken. Putting it in another way: was it the Soviet was spending that
caused its long stagnation or was it its long stagnation that made its military spending look
big?
"... Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip. ..."
"... A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky in May 2005. ..."
"... On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi. ..."
"... 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them about Russia.' ..."
"... Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of �lite Westerners, which, in honor of Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own, often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear. ..."
"... Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet. ..."
"... (One good example is provided by the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.) ..."
"... When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked. (See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/ .) ..."
"... Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece, Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends said.' ..."
"... The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military, culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people populating this bubble. ..."
"... Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced. ..."
1. Not only large elements of the American and British intelligence services, but the 'Borgistas' in both countries, now
including large elements of the academic/research apparatus and most of the MSM, really are joined at the hip.
It is thus an open question how far it is useful to speak of British intelligence intervening in the American election, rather
than the American section of the 'Borg' and their partners in crime 'across the pond' colluding in an attempt to mount such an
intervention with a greater appearance of 'plausible deniability.'
2. A relevant element of such collusion has to do with the creation of the Yeltsin-era Russian oligarchy. On this, a crucial
source are interviews given by Christian Michel and Christopher Samuelson, who used to run a company called 'Valmet', to Catherine
Belton, then with the 'Moscow Times', later with the 'Financial Times', in the days leading up to the conviction of Mikhail Khodorkovsky
in May 2005.
This describes the education in 'Western banking practices' given to him and his Menatep associates by Michel and Samuelson,
starting as early as 1989, and also their crucial involvement with Berezovsky.
We are told by Belton that: 'With the help of British government connections, Valmet had already built up a wealthy clientele
that included the ruling family of Dubai.' As to large ambitions which Michel and Samuelson had, she tells us: 'Used to dealing
with the riches of Arab leaders, they found Menatep, by comparison still relatively small fry. By 1994, however, Menatep had started
moving into all kinds of industries, from chemicals to textiles to metallurgy. But for Valmet, which by that time had already
partnered up with one of the oldest banks in the United States, Riggs Bank, and for Menatep, the real prize was oil.'
Try Googling 'Riggs Bank' -- a lot of interesting information emerges, on matters such as their involvement with Prince Bandar.
So, what we are dealing with is a joint Anglo-American attempt to create a 'comprador' oligarchy who could loot Russia's raw materials
resources.
3. On the subject of the competence of MI6, what seems to me a total apposite judgement was provided by the man whom Steele
and his associates framed over the death of Litvinenko, Andrei Lugovoi.
In the press conference in May 2007 where he responded to the request for his extradition submitted by the Crown Prosecution
Service, he claimed that: 'Litvinenko used to say: They are total retards in the UK, they believe everything we are telling them
about Russia.'
It seems to me quite likely, although obviously not certain, that this did indeed represent the view of many of the 'StratCom'
operators around Berezovsky of people like Steele.
Throughout life, I have repeatedly come across a game played on certain kinds of �lite Westerners, which, in honor of
Kipling, who gave brilliant depictions of it, I call 'fool the stupid Sahib.' Both people from other societies, and their own,
often play this game, and the underlying mentality not infrequently involves a combination of a sense of inferiority and contempt
for the gullibility of people who are thought of -- commonly with justice -- as not knowing how the world really works, and thus
being open to manipulation if one tells them what they want to hear.
Some fragments of a mass of evidence that this was precisely what Litvinenko did were presented by me in a previous post.
Irrespective of whether Lugovoi was accurately reporting what Litvinenko said, however, a mass of 'open source' evidence
testifies to the extreme credulity with which officials and journalists on both sides of the Atlantic treat claims made by members
of the 'StratCom' groups created by the oligarchs whose initial training was done by Valmet.
(One good example is provided by
the way that Sir Robert Owen and his team took what the surviving members of the Berezovsky group told them on trust. Another
is the extraordinary way MSM figures continue to claim made by Khodorkovsky and his associates seriously.)
Accordingly, when I read of anyone treating practically anything that Steele claims as plausible, I try to work out how much
of a 'retard' they must be, starting with a baseline of about 50%.
4. In the light of the way that the reliance on the dossier in the FISA applications absent meaningful corroboration is being
defended by Comey and others on the basis that Steele was 'considered reliable due to his past work with the Bureau', the question
is how many people in the FBI must be considered to have a 'retard' rating somewhere over 90%.
When I discover that John Sipher is a 'former member of the CIA's Clandestine Service', who also worked 'on Russian espionage
issues overseas, and in support of FBI counterintelligence investigations domestically,' then his apologetics for Steele seem
not only to suggest he may be another 'total retard' -- but to point towards how the Anglo-American collaboration actually worked.
(See https://www.politico.eu/article/devin-nunes-donald-trump-the-smearing-of-christopher-steele/
.)
5. Another characteristic of these 'retards' is that they seem unable to get their story straight. In his piece last September
defending the dossier, Sipher wrote that 'While in London he worked as the personal handler of the Russian defector Alexander
Litvinenko.' Apparently he didn't know that the 'party line' had changed -- that when Steele emerged from hiding in May, his mouthpiece,
Luke Harding of the 'Guardian', had explained: 'As head of MI6's Russia desk, Steele led the inquiry into Litvinenko's polonium
poisoning, quickly concluding that this was a Russian state plot. He did not meet Litvinenko and was not his case officer, friends
said.'
6. In his attempts to defend the credibility of the dossier, Sipher also explains that its -- supposed -- author was President
of the Cambridge Union. Here, two profiles of Steele on the 'MailOnline' site are of interest.
In one a contemporary is quoted:
"'When you took part in politics at the Cambridge Union, it was very spiteful and full of people spreading rumours," he said.
"Steele fitted right in. He was very ambitious, ruthless and frankly not a very nice guy."
The other tells us that he born in Aden in 1964, and that his father was in the military, before going on to say that contemporaries
recall an 'avowedly Left-wing student with CND credentials', while a book on the Union's history says he was a 'confirmed socialist'.
From my own -- undistinguished and mildly irreverent -- Cambridge career, I can testify that there was indeed a certain kind
of student politician, whom, if I may mix metaphors, fellow-students were perfectly well aware were going to arse-lick their way
up some greasy pole or other in later life.
It was a world with which I came back in contact when, after living abroad and a protracted apprenticeship in print journalism,
I accidentally found employment with what was then one of the principal television current affairs programmes in Britain. In the
early 'Eighties I overlapped with Peter -- now Lord -- Mandelson, who became one of the principal architects of 'New Labour.'
7. Given that at this time British intelligence agencies were somewhat paranoid about CND, there is a small puzzle as to why
on his graduation in 1986 Steele should have been recruited by MI6. In more paranoid moments I wonder whether he did not already
have intelligence contacts through his father, and served as a 'stool pigeon' as a student.
But then, people like Sir John Scarlett and Sir Richard Dearlove may simply have concluded that someone with 'form' in smearing
rivals at the Union was ideally suited for the kind of organisation they wanted to run.
8. From experience with Mandelson, and others, there are however other relevant things about this type. One is that they commonly
love Machiavellian intrigue, and are very good at it, within the worlds they know and understand.
If however they have to try to cope with alien environments, where they do not know the people and where such intrigues are
played much more ruthlessly, they are liable to find themselves hopelessly outclassed. (This can happen not simply with the politics
of the post-Soviet space and the Middle East, but with some of the murkier undergrowths of local politics in London.)
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles
they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American.
This can lead to political misjudgements.
9. So it is not really so surprising that, when Berezovsky's 'StratCom' people told them that the Putin 'sistema' really was
the 'return of Karla', people like Steele believed everything they said, precisely as Lugovoi brought out.
There is I think every reason to believe that, from first to last, the intrigues in which he has been involved have involved
close collusion between them and elements in American intelligence -- including the FBI. As a result, a lot of people on both
sides of the Atlantic have repeatedly got into complex undercover contests in the post-Soviet space which ran right out of control,
creating a desperate need for cover-ups. A similar pattern applies in relation to the activities of such people in the Middle
East.
Another limitation on their understanding is that the last thing they are interested in his how the world outside the bubbles
they prefer to inhabit operates, and they commonly have absolutely contempt for 'deplorables', be they Russian, British or American.
This can lead to political misjudgements.
It is not just "can" it very often does. The whole situation with Russia, of which, be it her economy, history, military,
culture etc., is not known to those people, is a monstrous empirical evidence of a complete professional inadequacy of most people
populating this bubble.
Most of those people are badly educated (I am not talking about worthless formal degrees they hold) and cultured. In dry
scientific language it is called a "confirmation bias", in a simple human one it is called being ignorant snobs, that is why this
IC-academic-political-media "environment" in case of Russia prefers openly anti-Russian "sources" because those "sources" reiterate
to them what they want to hear to start with, thus Chalabi Moment is being continuously reproduced.
In case of Iraq, as an example, it is a tragedy but at least the world is relatively safe. With Russia, as I stated many times
for years--they simply have no idea what they are dealing with. None. It is expected from people who are briefed by "sources"
such as Russian fugitive London Oligarchy or ultra-liberal and fringe urban Russian "tusovka". Again, the level of "Russian Studies"
in Anglophone world is appalling. In fact, it is clear and present danger since removes or misinterprets crucial information about
the only nation in the world which can annihilate the United States completely in such a light that it creates a real danger even
for a disastrous military confrontation. I would go on a limb here and say that US military on average is much better aware of
Russia and not only in purely military terms. In some sense--it is an exception. But even there, there are some trends (and they
are not new) which are very worrisome.
"... members of Washington's smart set, Republicans and Democrats alike, declared that the opportunities now presenting themselves went beyond the merely stupendous. Indeed, history itself had ended. With the United States as the planet's sole superpower, [neo]liberal democratic capitalism was destined to prevail everywhere. ..."
"... In the 1990s, rampant victory disease fueled extraordinary hubris and a pattern of reckless behavior informed by an assumption that the world would ultimately conform to the wishes of the "indispensable nation." In the years to come, an endless sequence of costly mishaps would ensue from Mogadishu to Mosul. ..."
"... Trump is not a revolutionary, and he is not the devil. He simply represents an attempt late in a systemic downward cycle to correct few excesses and buy some time. ..."
"... The beneficiaries of the excess policies – cheap labor businesses, ethnic castes, trans-gender professionals, open border fanatics, military extremists – are fighting tooth and nail to keep any change from happening. They are at this point beyond hysteria, they sense the goodies might be slipping from their hands (it is mostly about their jobs and careers). ..."
"... Two fundamental omissions from the analysis are: in domestic policies the devastating impact of affirmative action on the next generation of young, white males. And in foreign policy the equally devastating impact of Bill Clinton's attack on Serbia (to create a 'Muslim' Kosovo statelet in Europe) had on the international law and norms. Iraq inevitably followed Serbia. ..."
1989: The Fall of the Berlin Wall. As the Cold War wound down, members of Washington's
smart set, Republicans and Democrats alike, declared that the opportunities now presenting
themselves went beyond the merely stupendous. Indeed, history itself had ended. With the United
States as the planet's sole superpower, [neo]liberal democratic capitalism was destined to
prevail everywhere.
There would be no way except the American Way. In fact, however, the passing of the Cold War
should have occasioned a moment of reflection regarding the sundry mistakes and moral
compromises that marred U.S. policy from the 1940s through the 1980s. Unfortunately, policy
elites had no interest in second thoughts -- and certainly not in remorse or contrition.
In the 1990s, rampant victory disease fueled extraordinary hubris and a pattern of reckless
behavior informed by an assumption that the world would ultimately conform to the wishes of the
"indispensable nation." In the years to come, an endless sequence of costly mishaps would ensue
from Mogadishu to Mosul.
When, in due time, Donald Trump announced his intention to dismantle the establishment that
had presided over those failures, many Americans liked what he had to say, even if he spoke
from a position of total ignorance.
Those who hate Trump, will hate Trump. And very little of what they write will not be
colored by the hatred.
The analysis – although based on a sound historical premise – is off by miles.
It focuses on personalities and avoids mentioning the systemic failures by Western
institutions, from media to academia, from Hollywood to UN. Trump is not a revolutionary, and
he is not the devil. He simply represents an attempt late in a systemic downward cycle to
correct few excesses and buy some time.
The beneficiaries of the excess policies –
cheap labor businesses, ethnic castes, trans-gender professionals, open border fanatics,
military extremists – are fighting tooth and nail to keep any change from happening.
They are at this point beyond hysteria, they sense the goodies might be slipping from their
hands (it is mostly about their jobs and careers).
Two fundamental omissions from the analysis are: in domestic policies the devastating
impact of affirmative action on the next generation of young, white males. And in foreign
policy the equally devastating impact of Bill Clinton's attack on Serbia (to create a
'Muslim' Kosovo statelet in Europe) had on the international law and norms. Iraq inevitably
followed Serbia.
Why are these points left out? Because they would make the neo-liberal Democrats look bad?
Right, Gore as president, that would had fixed it all
Bacevich didn't write a word about the Open Borders fetish of both parties from which Trump
dissented, or seemed to. Not a word. And this played no small part in Trump winning the GOP
nomination and the election.
Fantastic article. A very plausible hypothesis. "The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement
was reached between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold
Russia's interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial
system. Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the
liberal economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let
the West write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia
live in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders."
Notable quotes:
"... And now, at last, as the feasts are over, the real trial begins. The US is preparing a new round of sanctions, including seizure of Russian oligarch assets. They are ripe for collection. The confiscation of Russian holdings in Cyprus banks in 2013 passed without a hitch and served as a trial balloon. Putin didn't object overmuch, for he is a sworn enemy of offshore accounts. None of the fleeced Russian businessmen succeeded in recovering their losses in court. Now is the time for the real thing, and much of the anti-Russian hysteria is aimed at preparing the ground for the seizure. In this way, they plan to get a cool trillion dollars into the US Treasury. Who will lose his assets and who will survive, this is the talk of the day in Moscow. ..."
"... Now we are coming to a difficult part. The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement was reached between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold Russia's interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial system. Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the liberal economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let the West write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia live in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders. ..."
"... Mr Putin inherited The Deal. Slowly, the Deal has been eroded from both sides. NATO troops moved eastward, no sizeable investment came in, the West supported Chechen rebels. Russia limited Western access to its military-industrial complex; took Crimea; regained some of its international independence. ..."
"... The powerful personalities of Yeltsin's era remained embedded in the upper echelons of Putin's state. Chubais and Kudrin were and are untouchable. They are connected with the FRS and the IMF, they go to Bilderberg and Davos, they are often described as 'the colonial administration'. ..."
"... They steal with both hands, and do it with impunity. Just last week it was revealed and published that Mr Chubais and Mr Kudrin appropriated a cool billion dollars of Russian state money while repaying the Soviet debt to the Czech Republic. ..."
"... Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses immense riches. And Putin does not dare to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism. This is the Deal. ..."
"... Putin has been unhappy with the Deal for a long time, vocally so since his Munich talk in 2007, but he stuck to the script. Even now, Russia's economy follows the liberal model; billions of dollars are being siphoned out of Russia monthly; billions of dollars' worth of Western manufactured consumer goods are imported and sold in Russia, though it would make perfect sense to organise local manufacture. Russia's Central Bank is directly connected to the Western finance system, and its emission is limited by the amount of hard currency in its coffers. The Rouble carry trade prospers, like the Yen carry trade did years ago. ..."
"... This presented the golden opportunity for the anti-Putin activists, the time they can collect the fruit of their hard work. A somewhat typical anti-Putin activist is an �migr�, Mr Andrey Illarionov, a Yeltsin man, an ex-adviser to President Putin (until 2005), a US resident, a member of the loony Cato Institute and an adept of Ayn Rand. He is an anti-Russian fanatic; next to him Rachel Maddow is a Putin groupie and Tokyo Rose a symbol of patriotism. ..."
"... Speaking to the Congress Committee of Foreign Affairs in 2009, he famously claimed about the US administration policy towards Russia that "it is not even an appeasement policy so well known to us by another Munich decision in 1938, it is a surrender. A full, absolute, unconditional surrender to the regime of secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". Despite these fighting words, he is a frequent visitor to Moscow, and he never misses a demo where he can call out "Putin must leave" apparently unafraid of the "secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". This is all you should know about the totalitarian Russian regime! ..."
"... Now Mr Illarionov is lobbying the US Congress to remove its threats from the heads of those deserving oligarchs, who (in his words) amassed their fortune before advent of Mr Putin and "in order to survive, they had been forced to pay a large tribute to the Kremlin". His lobbying effort on behalf of the Old Money people has been shared and supported by two notorious Putin haters, a fellow �migr� Piontkovsky and a Swedish Neo-Con Anders Aslund. ..."
"... This is not a coincidence; the Russian Old Money is solidly in bed with the Clinton camp. If Friedman succeeds in escaping the sanctions, it will be an additional proof that the Bankers still have the upper hand in the US Administration. ..."
"... Echo Moskwy ..."
"... But perhaps it is too late for him. An unverifiable odd rumour has risen in Moscow. They say that the Communist candidate Pavel Grudinin has strong backing among the "siloviki", that is Putin's appointees, often but not exclusively of security services background, for they are unhappy with Putin's adherence to the Deal. But that will be the subject of my next piece. ..."
"... That is my understanding also but I could be wrong. Excellent piece. But I have one small point�the crawling re-nationalization of many crucial industries did happen on Putin's watch. But in general, as I stated many times, he faces an inevitable meeting, if he were to survive as a politician, with the issue of 1990s robbery and with necessity to dismantle Yeltsin's "heritage'. ..."
"... I wonder how much of what Israel wrote might be real thing. If Putin really is going to do what you are writing he is going to be company of Russia history greatest. ..."
"... There is also indeed a question of all those offshore capitals which are stolen money. Considering state resources and capabilities there definitely might be an offer they cannot refuse to just give money back. ..."
"... Putin sure as hell has all necessary resources to make this offer. ..."
While you have probably already forgotten the feast, Russia is only now slowly coming back to life after its overlong Christmas
break completed on January 14 by the quaintly named Old New Year, or even perhaps by the Epiphany on January 19. Everybody went somewhere,
even candidates for the presidential race coming in on March 18: the Communist one went to ski in Austria, while the right-winger
went to Bali. On the eve of Epiphany, they dipped in the ice-cold waters: the ultimate trial of Russian fitness. Not only he-man
Putin, but even she-woman Sobchak did it!
And now, at last, as the feasts are over, the real trial begins. The US is preparing a new round of sanctions, including seizure
of Russian oligarch assets. They are ripe for collection. The confiscation of Russian holdings in Cyprus banks in 2013 passed without
a hitch and served as a trial balloon. Putin didn't object overmuch, for he is a sworn enemy of offshore accounts. None of the fleeced
Russian businessmen succeeded in recovering their losses in court. Now is the time for the real thing, and much of the anti-Russian
hysteria is aimed at preparing the ground for the seizure. In this way, they plan to get a cool trillion dollars into the US Treasury.
Who will lose his assets and who will survive, this is the talk of the day in Moscow.
The Russian assets in the west could be divided into New Money, assets of Putin's people, and the Old Money, assets of Yeltsin's
people. The sanctions are supposed to deal with Putin's people, but Russian experts think the Old Money is more vulnerable, for a
good reason. The New Money is under Putin's protection. If the US or any other western authority grabs it, the Russian government
may seize Western shares in Russian companies and properties.
But what about the Old Money? Its owners, elder oligarchs, are extremely worried about Putin's nonchalance. Putin takes it easy,
they say. Ma'alish , the Arab in Putin says. Que sera sera , says his inner Frenchman. And this nonchalant attitude
drives the oligarchs crazy. They want him to fight and save their money. They insisted on his meeting with President Trump in Vietnam;
some say the meeting took place in the depth of the night, far from prying eyes, and didn't bring results. Now Putin says to the
Old Money: if you want to save your money, repatriate it to Russia. We aren't that mad, they reply. You have to defend us anyway!
That was the Deal!
Now we are coming to a difficult part. The Deal. Connected people, in-the-know, claim that a top-secret agreement was reached
between the late Mr Yeltsin and his cronies, on one side, and The West, on the other side, in 1991. Yeltsin et al had sold Russia's
interests down the river, and in return, The West allowed the bastards to hoard their ill-gotten gains in the Western financial system.
Yeltsin et al had promised to let the Soviet republics go; to disarm; to follow the Washington Consensus, i.e. to stick to the liberal
economic model; to allow the free import of consumer goods; to allow Western access to the Russian military complex; to let the West
write Russian laws; to permit the free outflow of capital from Russia. The West promised to bring investment, to let Russia live
in peace, to keep NATO away from Russian borders.
Mr Putin inherited The Deal. Slowly, the Deal has been eroded from both sides. NATO troops moved eastward, no sizeable investment
came in, the West supported Chechen rebels. Russia limited Western access to its military-industrial complex; took Crimea; regained
some of its international independence.
Putin was elected, or you may say, he was appointed to stick to the Deal and to serve as the Supreme Arbiter among the oligarchs,
with very little of a power base of his own. Slowly, he created his own oligarchs (they are described as "siloviki", though not all
of them have some security forces background), and he had built up a limited power base; though many important positions, in particular
in the economic sphere, remained in the hands of the Old Guard, Yeltsin's men. This, too, was a part of the Deal.
The powerful personalities of Yeltsin's era remained embedded in the upper echelons of Putin's state. Chubais and Kudrin were
and are untouchable. They are connected with the FRS and the IMF, they go to Bilderberg and Davos, they are often described as 'the
colonial administration'.
They steal with both hands, and do it with impunity. Just last week it was
revealed and published that Mr Chubais and Mr Kudrin appropriated
a cool billion dollars of Russian state money while repaying the Soviet debt to the Czech Republic. The worst Putin can do about
them is to give them a fat chunk of the Russian economy to chew on, while limiting their access to the rest. So he gave Mr Chubais
the Rusnano company that made no profit but
embezzled
billions . This was the Deal.
Yeltsin's oligarchs remained as rich as they were; Yeltsin's family still possesses immense riches. And Putin does not dare
to touch them. He goes hat in hand to open a Yeltsin's Memorial Centre; he is courteous with Yeltsin's widow and daughter. Putin's
establishment cautiously avoided celebration, or even mention of the Revolution centenary, in keeping with Yeltsin's anticommunism.
This is the Deal.
The topmost schools of Russia, the most endowed, the most privileged schools for the children of the new nobility are the HSE,
(the Higher School of Economics, a clone of the LSE and the economic think-tank of the government), and MGIMO, (Moscow State Institute
of International Relations, the school for perspective diplomats). Their graduates were been trained to despise Russia and admire
the neo-liberal West (just like the Indian students trained by the Brits, had admired England and despised their country in the days
of the British Raj). Professor Medvedev of the HSE called upon Russian government to transfer the Russian Far North to the international
community, though this is the place of the greatest gas reserves (he kept his position). Professor Zubov of the MGIMO had compared
Putin to Hitler, and denounced Russian diplomats as liars (his contract hasn't been prolonged). All that is a part of the Deal.
Putin has been unhappy with the Deal for a long time, vocally so since his Munich talk in 2007, but he stuck to the script.
Even now, Russia's economy follows the liberal model; billions of dollars are being siphoned out of Russia monthly; billions of dollars'
worth of Western manufactured consumer goods are imported and sold in Russia, though it would make perfect sense to organise local
manufacture. Russia's Central Bank is directly connected to the Western finance system, and its emission is limited by the amount
of hard currency in its coffers. The Rouble carry trade prospers, like the Yen carry trade did years ago.
Meanwhile, the Deal has been undone from the West, as a result of the epic struggle between Bankers and Producers, otherwise described
as Liberals vs. Conservatives, or Globalists vs. Regionalists, personalised as Clinton vs. Trump. Yeltsin's people are historically
aligned with the Clinton camp. Now, their assets in the West, previously protected by the Deal, have lost their protection and come
up for grabs.
The Old Money people are putting their effort into persuading the West, namely the US, to let them live in peace and instead confiscate
the pro-Putin New Money.
This presented the golden opportunity for the anti-Putin activists, the time they can collect the fruit of their hard work.
A somewhat typical anti-Putin activist is an �migr�, Mr Andrey Illarionov, a Yeltsin man, an ex-adviser to President Putin (until
2005), a US resident, a member of the loony Cato Institute and an adept of Ayn Rand. He is an anti-Russian fanatic; next to him Rachel
Maddow is a Putin groupie and Tokyo Rose a symbol of patriotism.
Speaking to the Congress Committee of Foreign Affairs in 2009, he famously
claimed
about the US administration policy towards Russia that "it is not even an appeasement policy so well known to us by another Munich
decision in 1938, it is a surrender. A full, absolute, unconditional surrender to the regime of secret police officers, chekists
and Mafiosi". Despite these fighting words, he is a frequent visitor to Moscow, and he never misses a demo where he can call out
"Putin must leave" apparently unafraid of the "secret police officers, chekists and Mafiosi". This is all you should know about the
totalitarian Russian regime!
(�migr�s are frequently like that, and the US, a country of immigrants, had been vulnerable to the attack by Illarionov Syndrome,
by listening to Masha Gessen, or to Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi �migr� who claimed Iraq has had WMD, to Alexander Solzhenitsyn with
his horror stories about GULAG, etc. I made it a rule to moderate my critique of Israel while abroad, in fear of failing the Illarionov
Sanity Test.)
Now Mr Illarionov is lobbying the US Congress to remove its threats from the heads of those deserving oligarchs, who (in his
words) amassed their fortune before advent of Mr Putin and "in order to survive, they had been forced to pay a large tribute to the
Kremlin". His lobbying effort on behalf of the Old Money people has been shared and supported by two notorious Putin haters, a fellow
�migr� Piontkovsky and a Swedish Neo-Con Anders Aslund.
Direct and generous beneficiaries of their lobbying are the Three Alpha Jews, Peter Aven, Michael Friedman and Herman Khan. They
are owners of the Alpha Bank, a very big Russian bank , and they are Old Money oligarchs from Yeltsin's days when their kin ruled
the land.
Michael Friedman, the fat guy with a jolly piglet face, rose to his eminence from being a ticket tout selling illegally obtained
opera tickets to Western tourists near Bolshoi Theatre; afterwards he became The Mind behind all ticket mafias in Moscow, and then
proceeded to banking and so many other things.
Like many Old Money guys, Friedman earns money in Russia, but siphons it off for Jewish causes. He is a co-founder of a "Jewish
Nobel Prize", also called Genesis Prize, a cool million dollars being given annually to a deserving Jew, the most recent one being
the notorious Ruth Bader Ginsburg who
called Donald
Trump, "the faker". This is not a coincidence; the Russian Old Money is solidly in bed with the Clinton camp. If Friedman succeeds
in escaping the sanctions, it will be an additional proof that the Bankers still have the upper hand in the US Administration.
Alternatively, it could mean they are just smart and able to play the both houses. The Three Alpha Jews had been mentioned in
the Steele Dossier as the conduit of Putin influence for Trump and against Clinton in the recent US Presidential elections. (They
are
suing Fusion GPS and BuzzFeed for spreading the accusation).
According to an even better conspiracy theory spread on the social networks, both Mr Illarionov and the smart Alpha Jews are a
sleeper cell organised by cunning Mr Putin to ensure his survival in the most adverse conditions. All of them were very friendly
with Putin; perhaps they just pretended to become his enemies, the conspiratorially minded journalist from the anti-Putin Echo
Moskwy has implied.
Leaving the conspiracy theories aside for a while, we can reach a conclusion. The forthcoming attack of the US establishment on
Russian assets is likely to undermine the Old Money of the Yeltsin Oligarchs, and not only them. This confiscation will spell the
death knell to the notorious Deal, and then we shall see Putin Unbound.
But perhaps it is too late for him. An unverifiable odd rumour has risen in Moscow. They say that the Communist candidate
Pavel Grudinin has strong backing among the "siloviki", that is Putin's appointees, often but not exclusively of security services
background, for they are unhappy with Putin's adherence to the Deal. But that will be the subject of my next piece.
The forthcoming attack of the US establishment on Russian assets is likely to undermine the Old Money of the Yeltsin Oligarchs,
and not only them. This confiscation will spell the death knell to the notorious Deal, and then we shall see Putin Unbound.
That is my understanding also but I could be wrong. Excellent piece. But I have one small point�the crawling re-nationalization
of many crucial industries did happen on Putin's watch. But in general, as I stated many times, he faces an inevitable meeting,
if he were to survive as a politician, with the issue of 1990s robbery and with necessity to dismantle Yeltsin's "heritage'.
"Que sera sera". One of my favorite songs. Sung by Doris Day and was a hit in the 1950′s. Italian in origin and translates
to "whatever will be, will be".
Agree. I wonder how much of what Israel wrote might be real thing. If Putin really is going to do what you are writing
he is going to be company of Russia history greatest.
There is also indeed a question of all those offshore capitals which are stolen money. Considering state resources and
capabilities there definitely might be an offer they cannot refuse to just give money back.
New evidence that Washington broke its promise not to expand NATO "one inch eastward" -- a fateful decision with ongoing ramifications
-- has not been reported by The New York Times or other agenda-setting media outlets
John Batchelor Jan 11,
2018 | 2,513
70
John Batchelor has a very popular political talk show on America's largest radio network, WABC.
He has Stephen Cohen on live in the studio almost every week for a full 45 minute segment, the only guest he gives that much time
to.
Why? Because Cohen's appearances are killing the ratings. America seems to be thirsting for an alternative and critical view of
Obama's Russia policy.
Cohen returns to a subject he has treated repeatedly since the 1990s, mainstream media malpractice in covering Russia, but with
a new and highly indicative example that is both historical and profoundly contemporary.
There have been three relevant major episodes of such malpractice. The first was when American newspapers, particularly The
New York Times , misled readers into thinking the Communists could not possibly win the Russian Civil War of 1918�20, as detailed
in a study by Walter Lippmann and Charles Merz, published as a supplement to The New Republic , August 4, 1920. (Once canonical,
the study was for years assigned reading at journalism schools, but no longer it seems to be.)
The third and current episode grew out of the second but spread quickly through the media in the early 2000s with the demonization
of Vladimir Putin, Yeltsin's successor, and now is amply evidenced by mainstream coverage of the new Cold War, Russiagate's allegation
that "Russia attacked American democracy" in 2016, and much else related to Russia. This rendition may be the worst, certainly it
is the most dangerous.
Media malpractice has various elements -- among them, selective use of facts, some unverified, highly questionable narratives
or reporting based on those "facts," mingled with editorial commentary passed off as "analysis," buttressed by carefully selected
"expert sources," often anonymous, and amplified by carefully chosen opinion page contributors. Throughout is the systematic practice
of excluding developments (and opinion) that do not conform to the Times ' venerable motto, "All the News That's Fit to
Print." When it comes to Russia, the Times often decides politically what is fit and what is not. And thus the most recent
but exceedingly important example.
In 1990, Soviet Russian leader Mikhail Gorbachev agreed not only to the reunification of Germany, whose division was the epicenter
of that Cold War, but also, at the urging of the Western powers, particularly the United States, that the new Germany would be a
member of NATO. (Already embattled at home, Gorbachev was further weakened by his decision, which probably contributed to the attempted
coup against him in August 1991.)
Gorbachev made the decision based on assurances by his then�Western "partners" that in return NATO would never be expanded "one
inch eastward" toward Russia. (Today, having nearly doubled its member countries, the world's most powerful military alliance sits
on Russia's western borders.) At the time, it was known that President George H.W. Bush had especially persuaded Gorbachev through
Secretary of State James Baker's "not one inch" and other equally emphatic guarantees.
Now, however, the invaluable National Security Archive at George Washington University has established the historical truth by
publishing, on December 12 of last year, not only a detailed account of what Gorbachev was promised in 1990�91
but the relevant documents themselves . The truth, and the promises broken, are much more expansive than previously known: All
of the Western powers involved -- the US, the UK, France, Germany itself -- made the same promise to Gorbachev on multiple occasions
and in various emphatic ways. If we ask when the West, particularly Washington, lost Moscow as a potential strategic partner after
the end of the Soviet Union, this is where an explanation begins.
And yet, nearly a month after the publication of the National Security Archive documents, neither the Times nor The
Washington Post , which profess to be the nation's most important, reliable, and indispensable political newspapers, has published
one word about this revelation. (Certainly the two papers are pervasively important to other media, not only due to their daily national
syndicates but because today's broadcast media, especially CNN, MSNBC, NPR, and PBS, take most of their own Russia-related "reporting"
cues from the Times and the Post .)
How to explain the failure of the Times and Post to report or otherwise comment on the National Security Archive's
publication? It can hardly be their lack of space or their disinterest in Russia, which they featured regularly in one kind of unflattering
story or another -- and almost daily in the form of "Russiagate." Given their immense daily news-gathering capabilities, could both
papers have missed the story? Impossible, even more so considering that three lesser publications -- The National Interest
, on December 12; Bloomberg , on December 13; and The American Conservative , on December 22 -- reported and
commented on its significance at length.
Or perhaps the Times and Post consider the history and process of NATO expansion to be no longer newsworthy,
even though it has been the driving, escalatory factor behind the new US-Russian Cold War; already contributed to two US-Russian
proxy hot wars (in Georgia in 2008 and in Ukraine since 2014) as well as to NATO's ongoing buildup on Russia's borders in the Baltic
region, which is fraught with the possibility of an actual war between the nuclear superpowers; provoked Russia into reactions now
cited as "grave threats"; nearly vaporized politically both the once robust pro-American lobby in Moscow politics and the previously
widespread pro-American sentiments among Russian citizens; and implanted in at least one generation of the Russian policy elite the
conviction that the broken promise to Gorbachev represented characteristic American "betrayal and deceit."
Soviet Fates and Lost
Alternatives .) Russians can cite other instances of "deceit," including President George W. Bush's 2002 unilateral abrogation
of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and Obama's broken promise that he would not use a 2011 UN Security Council resolution to depose
Libyan leader Gaddafi. But it is the broken promise to Gorbachev that lingers as America's original sin, partly because it was the
first of many such perceived duplicities, but mainly because it has resulted in a Russia semi-encircled by US-led Western military
power, an encroachment that continues today.
Given all this, we must ask again: Why did neither the Times nor the Post report the archive revelations? Most
likely because the evidence fundamentally undermines their essential overarching narrative that Putin's Russia is solely responsible
for the new Cold War and all of its attendant conflicts and dangers, and therefore that no rethinking of US policy toward post-Soviet
Russia since 1991 is advisable or, it seems, permissible, certainly not by President Donald Trump. Therein lie the national-security
dangers of media malpractice, and this example, while of special importance, is far from the only one in recent years. In this regard,
the Times and Post seem contemptuous not only of their own professed journalistic standards but of their purportedly
cherished adage that democracy requires fully informed citizens.
If Americans cannot rely on the Times and Post , at least in regard to US-Russian relations, where can they
seek the information and analysis they need? There are many valuable alternative media outlets, but few hard-working citizens have
time to locate and consult them. Cohen recommends that they turn to two websites that almost daily aggregate reporting, analysis,
and opinion not to be found in the Times , Post , or most other mainstream publications. One is
Johnson's Russia List . The other is the website
of the American Committee for East-West Accord , of which Cohen is a board
member. Upon request, both will come to your computer. The former requests a nominal donation but does not insist on it. The latter
is free. For readers who worry about international affairs, the new US-Russian Cold War, and America itself, the information and
perspectives they will gain from these sites are invaluable.
It is something of a mystery that this should have escaped Gorbachev, although Cohen does say that Conservatives warned him
against going with the flow on this one. He ignored them.
There's an old saying about leopards and never changing their spots. I guess he was as fooled, as many are, that the appalling
history of the US was in each case a separate incident, involving and caused by different people, and therefor "it will be different
this time." Gorbachev was willing to overlook the horrific evidence of an Anglo West planning to destroy the Russia who had saved
their bacon by winning WWII for them; and to destroy her utterly and horrifically. That he could overlook that beggars belief.
It's so essential to get the bigger picture, to read the History of the Nations you are dealing with extensively, to determine
how to connect the dots to find the pattern, and to realise that ultimately nations are an aggregate of systems - and a system
is far more powerful than most individuals [until you find a rare person who knows how to break the system].
Sadly, it seems that they had fallen for the idea too, that, as V. P. said when Russia abandoned communism, their opponent would
"to them hand the sword". i.e. would become partners and equals. That was never going to happen. It also shows us, once again,
that all too often political leaders are not well enough educated, not well enough informed and not bright enough, to undertake
the job of national leader which they do.
And we are not interested nor thoughtful enough to demand better.
...And we may not be educated suficient to look through the matter.
Before 1968 in Nordic countries with Sweden had hollistic education systems, making academics able to see the whole picture.
After 1968-70 they changed the education system so the working class could get academic degrees, but separated the disciplines
so you only were able to see your part and not the whole picture and leaving out history and roots.
Newspeak was introduced and started.
Its about classes, deliberately leaving the knowledge and whole picture to the elite.
Any hollistic educated who analyse US history should be able to see that you deal with a hypocrite and liar country throughout
from start up til today.
When Russia with its excellent education system missed the point in 1990�es I think it maybe more due to their previous suffering
and emotional culture, than to actual foolishness as we can see the Russians quickly raised their heads again from the ashes.
Same happened here in Australia Tommy, they lowered the education standard so that anyone can obtain a University Degree under
the belief that everyone is entitled to one and not only those best suited. Now one has idiots running corporations and in politics.
Getting them out is the problem. I have always expressed concern that those who wish to go into politics and government should
present to the Public a full resume as anyone would who is seeking a senior position in a corporation.
Very true John.
If you look at the entire system, we see that immense power over the lives of millions of people is given to those who don't have
to show any form of qualification for the job; any training; or prior experience, assessment by qualified experience assessors.
In fact, all they have to be able do is to generate money for themselves by making promises to others using taxpayer money;
present themselves in a slick, eye catching fashion like an aspiring film actor auditioning for a role; lie; as Vladimir Putin
said "make promises better than those of your competitor"; and sell meaningless words better than a used car salesman.
In other words, present themselves to voters as an ignorant, inexperienced psychopathic, criminally fraudulent, snake oil salesman.
And then we wonder why that's exactly what we get as our "leaders". !!
Thank you John - yes I do feel deeply that as civilisations, we have strayed from so much that is balanced, natural, and optimal
for human growth and happiness. We have so much in our cultures that beggars belief in it's stupidity- and as always, the very
stupid are too stupid to know that they are very stupid. I see us preening ourselves as the epitome of civilisation, when research
into the distant past shows we have had about 3.5 thousand years of slow, non-stop collapse including an arrogant ignorance.
Yet the answers are so close to hand. It's only an understanding of where we have all gone wrong, and a willingness to do what
needs to be done to correct it which will stop us falling into the night, I suspect.
Then again, I remember that everything happens in circles, and follows Universal Laws. Maybe we have no course but to follow the
natural pattern we have put ourselves on try to learn from it.
Thanks for your kind words John.
Yes, all this was about the time they introduced the "expert". Prior to that idea, a well educated, intelligent person was
held to have a wide ranging education, and to be familiar with many different disciplines. They they got the "expert" idea - a
mechanic in my - then - University Department informed me that "expert means, here is x which marks the spot of a drip under pressure"
!! :-)
Now we have people who know more and more about less and less until they reach the pinnacle where they know absolutely everything
about nothing.
Yes, I think the Russian education got infected by America, and in the struggle to break free of all the other disasters that
caused - just to survive as a country and as a people - this is an issue that has had to be put on a back burner. But they are
doing fine in spite of it, and I'm sure will find their way back to the best of the Soviet times education.
I still (and know not alone) feel Gorbachev is a Traitor that "sold" the USSR, the People of the USSR for Personal ("friends")
gain .... so he knew what would happen !
Remember the people of the USSR wanted to work through the "problems / issues" leaving the USSR intact but Gorbachev decided
to GO AGAINST the Wishes of the People / Wishes of the country and allowed the regions to "break free" including denying the right
for Crimea to Return to RF (loaned to Ukraine while USSR existed) .... why would you Do that except for your own agenda !
And Where does Gorbachev live .... but in U$ america ... and every time he visits RF he comes with masses of Body Guards
That last part is very interesting Vtran - I didn't know he lived in America.
I hadn't caught up with any documentation about his "friends", although there is the comment - with the long/lat given of the
area on the documentary "The Unknown Putin" - that Gorbachev sold to US what wasn't his to sell - a huge chunk of sea off the
coast of Russia, containing massive amounts of oil deposits!! He did it to get the money to try and defeat Yeltsin!! So, he has
a track record, and as the saying goes "he who lies once, lies ten times". The principle holds for everything, as well as lying.
I also didn't know that there were grass roots movements of people trying to stop the collapse of the USSR.
Can you recommend any good modern history resource which covers these events please?
I got a lot from that excellent documentary, but as is so often one is left wanting more.
I know Vladimir Putin doesn't like him - not one bit. I could "read" it from the Stone Interviews :-)
I certainly agree with you - that if he did all that, selling out the people of Russia - no way does he deserve to be grouped
with them, they aren't "his" people, in that case - then yes, he was a sellout traitor. Should count himself lucky to be alive!!
Isabella,, I will look for a document regarding Gorbachev selling out the people of the USSR .... However my comment is personnel
... all Russians I know, all people of the ex USSR (except those of fanatical Ukraine) speak as One ...The did not at the USSR
to break ... their views were "over ridden" !
-
Interesting comment of "selling off which does not belong" reminiscent of Alaska where the Gold supposedly exchange disappeared
after the western inspired revolution of 1918 !
Quote: Over 500 treaties were made with American Indian tribes, primarily for land cessations, but 500 treaties were also broken,
changed or nullified when it served the government's interests.
Because U$ Americans citizens thought the had "Given away STOLEN Worthless Land" .... and then found that "Worthless Land"
contained "Yellow Gold" ...... later more so called "Worthless Land" contained Black Gold and so it went on
Yupp...
Like the mineral & natural wealth of Russia, doesn't belong to Russia, but belong to the WORLD (a.k.a. City of London/Wall St)
??
Mad Madeleine Notsobright.
Who was Christopher Columbus? Any can check it out. My guess as another Vtran.
- What do you see?
- No gold yet?
- Of course there is gold there
It was the same as Europa. War in Indians replaced war on Muslim.
This a a very unhelpful spin by Cohen. Dugin, addressing the end of the cold war, reports that Brzezinski once told him, "we
tricked you." That's what happened. This is what Russians need to think about when speaking with their common law partners.
I have wondered many times how the S Union, a nation with so many brilliant people, could chose someone like Gorbatchev to
lead the country.
Reagan and Thatcher did whatever they wanted with him. They achieved all their objectives in dealing with Gorbachev because he
was receptive, soft and a puppet. Worst of all, he was a mix of an idiot and naif by believing them.
It was hard to build the S Union, very hard, and Gorbatchev wanted to make a transition from socialism to capitalism in one year.
Only an idiot could think like that.
He is the main responsible not only of the demise of the S Union but of the shameful accumulation of wealth in the hands of a
bunch of soulless oligarchs whose wealth, to date, remain untouched.
As a communist, I ask myself how could a guy like him lead the S Union. Yeltsin was another calamity but the main responsible
of the debacle is Gorbachev.
As a result of his stupidity, not only millions of Soviets encountered poverty and criminality, but he opened the way to the unipolar
world. Many invasions took place because the US. did not face any opposition.
North Korea had to rearm itself to protect. Cuba underwent a terrible period.
Gorbachev will go down in the history of Russia and communist from across the world as an idiot, as an irresponsible leader and
as a traitor.
This is very true. Millions died as a result of this colossal stupidity. Tens of millions more suffered appalling misery and
destitution. Several countries like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, have been completely destroyed. These are crimes on a gargantuan
scale. And there has been zero accountability.
Right, zero accountability because the S Union was influential on world institutions. Because of "imported liberalism in 365
days" many factories closed (because they were not "modern"), many good engineers became poor, families destroyed, all sorts of
gangs emerged, collective property and natural resources went to oligarchs without scruples for a cheap price. And there was no
bread in stores.
All thanks to Gorbachev who was in power almost 17 years, a long period in which he succumbed to the sweet-talk of Reagan and
Thatcher.
Having lived through the incredible 90s and the end of the Soviet Union, I believe that it was not wrong for Gorbachev to seek
partnership with the West. That move brought all of mankind back from the precipice of total extinction.
It was the LYING and deceitful actions of the "superior and civilized" West that betrayed the world and their own interests, just
to expand their territory and control, like some mindless plague that knows no morality.
There must be balance in world affairs.
Power corrupts and absolute power has corrupted the US/EU/NATO gang absolutely.
The West's loss is the worlds gain.
Russia will lead the free nations away from the rotten and putrid fate offered by the death merchants of the West.
Russia cannot seem to be able to lead itself from the cluches of the ooligarks who out send capital Russia desparately needs.
If and when Russia cleans up the mess that Gorby, Gelsman, and others made, there will not be any free nations or any hope for
peace and freedom in this late stage of mankind's probationary time.
No wonder we are in deep trouble! How shall I say? Well Stephen Cohen is too pedestrian, to put it mildly. There is nothing
I have ever heard him say that I did not know years ago. Wow the NYT and WaPo both publish fake news and omit what isn't convenient
ideologically. Go suck eggs granny. Even if large numbers of people in the US now listen to him (which I very much doubt), he's
too late by decades and will probably never catch up with the fact that 9/11 was an inside job/CIA/Mossad operation. As for Gorbachev,
Yeltsin, US deception, etc., he could have asked me a thing or six back in the 80s when Gorbachev was best buddies with Reagan
and Thatcher, it was bleedin' obvious that he was a dupe, though at first I was hopeful for glasnost and perestroika.
Not that I didn't have hopes for the Soviet Union anyway, nor that I didn't understand hanging on to Eastern Europe for too
long, because of US betrayal after WW2 ... heck Prof Cohen, since when hasn't Russia been betrayed?. Too late for all those who
either couldn't or wouldn't be informed decades ago. Too late for there to be any chance of averting escalation to WW3, unless
by more or less luck, such as the US internally imploding like the Soviet Union did but, unlike the Soviet Union's collapse by
US design, collapse of its own hubris and Empire over-reach, perhaps. Academics generally do not impress me.
.
Sorry if I have condensed too much, but I daresay some will know what I'm getting at.
As a "well informed American", a retired Marine, and having spent some two decades in research of our "national history", as
it relates to the status of the world today, I have to say, I've not deliberately read either paper since I was in third or fourth
grade, and then only because we lived in Massachusetts for a couple years.
I spent nine years in Chicago, before entering the Marines, and as a "paper boy", laughed at headlines every day, knowing the
lies for what they were, and having "truth" solely because my parents subscribed me to Popular Mechanics and Popular Science,
because I'm dyslexic, had problems in school, but am endowed with talent in mechanics and the hard sciences.
Those two magazines spent their pages defining the world of mechanics, moving forward, and the world of science, advancing, and
while most facts regarding "our state of our Nation" were indirect, just part of background, when a boy reads such cover to cover,
every month dozens of times, for a decade and more, the bits and pieces add up and paint a picture behind the "mechanical issue
or science issue", that is easily seen, looking past, and is intrinsically absolutely true, because no part was put up for the
purpose of "the big picture", but the big picture naturally emerges, when sufficient bits and pieces of data accumulate, and we
add them to what has long been accepted as true, tested and tried.
Having come to understandings by multiple articles on definitive science and engineering, with background bits and pieces coalescing,
simply reading headlines were nothing but amusing, and the greatest factor was wondering how adults could believe this trash.
I began with the intent to debunk all the conspiracy theories regarding McCarthy and government, and ended up with the certainty
McCarthy was right, he simply named them wrong, they were "Bolsheviks", using socialism and communism for cover, with the full
intent of overthrowing our government, and they have continued to this day.
We have become "an empire whose people follow the Emperor, even when he dances around with no clothes, never believing that boy
who actually sees.
Semper Fidelis,
John McClain
Vanceboro, NC, USA
Well said. It is quite refreshing, as I have been upsetting a few of your neighbours over on Info Wars. The activists, who
are desperate for a war with Iran, managed to leave Breit Bart for the day and flock to one of the articles. Together with those
that have no idea that the US is in a bad way, economically. As I find myself being labelled a Soros paid troll. The standard
of debate is quite soul destroying, until you can get somebody, who does not need personal insult to enhance their argument. Which
is so liberating.
For those who know what Russians are this is no surprise. A classless herd of sheep lead by a maniacal leader. If you think
ISIS or Hitler were bad you should read about Russian history and the atrocities they have perpetrated and continue today.
Off topic, but, related. A few interesting articles that all merge together.
Putin: Turkey not responsible for drone attack; Russia knows who was
Russian President calls drone attack "provocation" aimed at causing rift between Russia and Turkey...
http://theduran.com/putin-t...
How does Ukraine, fit into it, bearing in mind that Ukraine is planning similar in Crimea. The same Ukraine that does so well
from having the US Bio-weapons factories up and running. Not forgetting that NATO is also setting up a base in Khakov, non-NATO
territory and close to the bio-weapons factories. Then you have the mother craft, found hovering around the Russian bases in Syria
and her sister working so hard around Crimea.
Remember the Pentagon begging for Russian DNA? Now what was that all about?
Kharkov Is Forcibly Prepared For The Status of a NATO Base (remember Ukraine is a non-NATO nation)...http://
www.stalkerzone.org/kharkov ...
US Military Bio-labs in Ukraine, Production of Bio-weapons and "Disease Causing Agents"
In 2015, American alternative media outlet InfoWars accused the Pentagon of developing new types of biological weapons in secret
military laboratories in Ukraine. The facilities were constructed under the terms of the bilateral agreement signed between the
Ministry of Health of Ukraine and the Department of Defense in 2012.
Today thirteen American military bio-labs operate in Ukraine, The International Mass Media Agency reports. They employ only American
specialists being entirely funded from the budget of the Department of Defense. Local authorities have pledged not to interfere
in their work. These military labs are reported to be mainly involved in the study and production of disease-causing agents of
smallpox, anthrax and botulism. The facilities are located in the following Ukrainian cities: Odessa, Vinnytsia, Uzhgorod, Lviv
(three), Kharkiv, Kyiv (four), Kherson, Ternopil.
Slightly off topic, but, another story of the West trying to upset Russia. Followed by what came next, which made me seriously
laugh. The first article is well worth reading, just for the awe aspect and mega congratulations to the team. The 2nd article,
just made me laugh. You gotta love those sanctions. Where there is a will there is a way.
President Gorbachev has made clear several times that the agreement reached with the former Soviet Union regarding NATO and
the reunification of Germany was specific to the East/West line through Germany. To date Germany and NATO have kept that promise.
What are Russia's rights? Well, Moscow simply has no right to expect that her neighbors do not enjoy the sovereign right to
join any alliances each may wish.
James Baker (and others) told Gorbachev that NATO will not expand to the East so western powers are a bunch liars, that's for
sure.
As for sovereign rights, that also depends if the organisation is willing to accept a certain country, not only if the country
wants to join it. Germany and France for example blocked Ukraine and Georgia from joining NATO in 2008. Countries are also allowed
to join NATO in order to contribute to its security and i'm not sure about the "gain" of taking small countries on the border
of the biggest nuclear power. That increases the possibility for arms race and for war between the major powers, that's for sure.
Also it is unclear how "sovereign" these decisions are, since lots of western money was invested in media, NGOs and political
leaders and parties in Eastern Europe in order to promote pro-NATO views. US government officials bragged about "investing" 5
billion dollars in Ukraine for that purpose.
So those countries and their politicians were basically bribed, while their population propagandised via foreign sponsored
media. This has nothing to do with sovereignity, rather its about interfering in other countries affairs.
Moreover, the US uses loopholes in international law in order to support rebels in various countries, to stage coups and to
interefere in democracy and elections, with the aim of changing the politics of the target country, and even balkanising/disintegrating
the target country.
Well, if the US can do that, others can too, hence the rebels in Ukraine, who are now preventing the country from joining NATO.
It could be much more simple. An agreement for buffer zone between NATO and Russia, so that peace and stability are secured.
Or it could be "my way or the high way" mentality, which of course leads to wars and destabilisation. Which will not be a good
thing in the nuclear proliferation era.
Russia wants peace and stability. The US does not. Its entire geopolitical strategy is based on destabilising the rest of the
world, so that it remains divided and mired in internal squabbles, and no strong power could arise there. In addition to fueling
conflict and selling weapons to both sides while staying out of it. Divide and rule.
The Russian (and Chinese - OBOR) strategy will be to stabilise, unite and interconnect the rest of the world, particularly
Eurasia, in order to overthrow the US - the great disruptor. And as of now, they are winning.
Personally speaking, I have little choice but to go with what Presidents Gorbachev and Reagan, along with FM Shevardnadze and
Secretary Baker, have said on the subject. Not moving NATO troops or equipment one step east of the East/West German line of the
time was promised. This happens to fall precisely in line with what German Chancellor Schroeder has said and written as well.
The context of the discussions were in the context of Germany, not the whole of Europe.
According to President Gorbachev the collapse of the Soviet Union was not conceivable at that time. Thus, according to Mr.
Gorbachev, he never participated in any discussion of Soviet States joining (or not joining) NATO.
Lastly, I reject the popular notion in some circles that all who align themselves with Russia do so out of free will but those
who align themselves with the U.S. and the West must be corrupt or coorced. I believe such ideas ring of arrogance and dismissiveness.
This is not what recent US media says on ths topic.
"the collection shows that top officials from the U.S., Germany and the U.K. all
offered assurances to Gorbachev and Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze
that NATO would not expand toward the Russian borders. The documents
make clear that the Western politicians meant no expansion to Eastern
European countries, not just the East German territory."
The context here is about NATO expansion in Eastern Europe, to the east of Germany, whether the new (former soviet) states
existed or not.
Large parts of EE were never part of the USSR.
"Lastly, I reject the popular notion in some circles that all who align
themselves with Russia do so out of free will but those who align
themselves with the U.S. and the West must be corrupt or coorced. I
believe such ideas ring of arrogance and dismissiveness."
Thanks for the straw man, but i did not say that.
About this, i will say several things. First, there are no bigger and more sophisticated liars than western elites. They are
specialists in hiding and masking their interests behind "freedom", "democracy" and "human rights". The russians are more direct
and directly talk about russian interests, economic gains, "the fate of our people in this or that country", etc.
Second, if you look at russian foreign policy docs and statements you will notice that russians embrace multipolarity and significantly
lower level of interference in other peoples affairs. Specifically, the russians do not try to impose their "system", or developmental
model, or culturo-religious model on other countries. After the fall of communism, Russia no longer believes that it should impose
its "model" or "system" on other countries, and it does not believe that such an attempt could work either. So Russia accepts
the cultural and developmental differences and diversity in the different countries of the world, and does not try to remake it
in its own image, or push for "one size fits all" models. For example Russia does not believe that its own "state capitalism"
should be imposed everywhere, the way the US believes that its own neo-liberal capitalism should be imposed everywhere.
In comparison, the West and especially the US is messianic and self-obsessed, with strong belief in its own superiority and
maniacal desire to impose its own cultural and economic models on everyone else, whether they like it, or not. It thus believes
that it "knows better" than anyone else, and therefore should rule the world "for its own good".
In other words the US interferes everywhere and sees the whole world as its playground and even property, something that it
can change or remake the way it sees fit. Its like someone who wants to make decisions instead of you "for your own good", which
implies that everyone else is mentally inferior to the US, that the whole world is in custody of the US "parent", who knows "better"
than anyone else. It becomes crazed and obsessed if its model and culture are rejected by someone, as if that fatally weakens
its confidence in itself.
In comparison, the russians are much more direct that things are about pure interests, and are also not interested in interfering
at the level or scope the US does. They do not want to remake Poland, Britain, Korea or Iraq in their own image and are ok with
whatever culture or economic model these people have. Russia has several military bases abroad in comparison to 700 bases for
the US, and that tells you what is going on. Russia can also interfere sometimes, but for far more practical (and real) reasons,
mostly in their neighbours, with the aim of ensuring its own security (anti-terrorism), or for making sure that NATO military
can not be deployed en masse near its borders. There can be also some economic interference (gas disputes) or attempts to protect
russian minorities abroad. But russian interference does not come close to the level of the US one, or the scope of the US one,
and certainly does not include messianic dreams about remaking the whole world in its own image, and Russia definitely does not
see the world as its playground. The russian embrace of multipolarity means that Russia accepts that there will be countries with
vastly different cultures, economic and developmental models, even very different than the russian one, that there will be many
powers, and that Russia can not impose its views on the rest of the planet.
The attack on Russian airbase in Syria is a sign that the Central Intelligence Agency is sleepwalking into 3rd world war
For the CIA's information at the start of WW3, the CIA will be nuked since everyone knows it is the brain and actor for the
entire Western group of criminals.
CIA you will be nuked. Those CIA agents who survived will be hunted down in different countries like the dogs they are. Many
CIA superior officers will sell out their boses and subordinates to survive at the end there would be no more CIA. Just like the
NAZIs.
Look up DUMBs and YouTube a guy called Phil Schneider. The elites (including the CIA) will be as safe and secure as possible
in the event of a nuclear war.
Russia was not betrayed by USA. Russia was letting themselves willingly being betrayed, this is a big difference. The Russians
were shining all over their faces, dreaming, hoping to become Europeans, and getting coca-cola, friendships, scolarships and dollars
from the Americans...............LOL.
The Russians loved to be betrayed man, you loved it man................LOL.
If you really believe your words then they just reveal that you have an underdeveloped character and lack of empathy towards
your own self ... and towards others ... and an even larger deficit in history ... the uprising in Russia 1991 and tanks shooting
holes in the White House in Moscow were absolutely not about becoming Europeans or the want of Coca Cola and Big Macs that were
then introduced and made available thanks to Yeltsin ... a US puppet ... you love nothing Tommy ... and you are LOLing yourself
in an illusion if you try making others believe anybody would love to be betrayed ...
I have got a project for you, if interested. Andrew came up with a wonderful idea for one of your images. A pyramid, of 'yes'
men/women, with their noses firmly embedded in the butts of those above them. If you fancy some artwork, public friendly and nothing
that would frighten us, or get you banned, I will leave it to you.
You can even use these characters and their friends that arrived in 2017.
[Choose a single Handle and stick to it, or else use Anonymous/Anon. Otherwise, your
comments may be trashed.]
For such an uncritical defender of everything Russian, Mr. Saker would be well advised to
undertake an objective analysis of the Russian policies and actions from the time of
Gorbachev to the current time in order to look for the true causes of the dismal
geo-strategic position of Russia today, instead of blaming it all on western "partners" only.
I'm sure he would be able to find a plenty of strategic mistakes done by the Russian
leadership including Putin, during more than 3 decades, some of them result of naked
ignorance and others result of pure stupidity.
He would also have to touch on the issue of the "despotic" nature of the Russian state
whereby one man, whether able or not, decides about everything while everyone else
applauds.
Some suggested points for the analysis: betrayal and hand-over of East Germany against its
will, dissolution of Warsaw Pact without any paperwork (parallel dissolution of NATO was very
much discussed at the time but Russians didn't even ask for it), dissolution of the USSR
absolutely contrary to the interests of Russian people, destruction of "Mir" station,
betrayal of Serbia, Cuba, siding with "partners" on Iran, Libya, North Korea etc., giving up
on Vietnam and many Soviet friends and allies all over the world, half-hearted "intervention"
in Georgia, loss of Ukraine due to negligence, occasional mistreatment of Belarus for its
refusal to sell out to Russian oligarchs, total lack of care for the Russians stranded all
over former Soviet space etc. etc.
All theses things add up leading to where we are today. (I'm not even touching upon the
state of affairs inside Russia regarding corruption, salaries, oligarchs, social justice and
many others).
Woah slow down there. It was a piece of aging junk, had already had fire aboard, had
nonfunctional solar panels, the computers were fritzing out, mold was growing in the
isolation. The ISS, formerly Space Station Freedom, formerly Space Station Alpha, was taking
shape. Time to dump that assemblage of canisters.
Far more important is to have a heavy launcher like the Energia so you can launch it again and service
it. Well, that doesn't exist either now. SAD!
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 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.
"... 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.
"... 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
"... 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.
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 (n�e 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.
"... 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]
"... "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 ?
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 ?
The implication being that communism and Nazism is pretty much the same.
What is the reason for this idea that communism is evil or like Nazism and fascism and
aims to kill people?
Is it merely due to the propaganda during the Cold War? I find that doubtful as that was
quite a while ago. So why do Americans still commonly have this opinion?
This question is more of a philosophical one than about any specific policy, but it strikes
at the very heart of political thought and policymaking in general. I think it should be left
open. – Wes Sayeed
yesterday
Do you have any stats about how communism is viewed throughout the Western world? I always
get the feeling the hatred of communism isn't a "Western" thing, it's a "United States"
thing. – Erik
yesterday
The current most popular answers don't answer this question, but are explanations why the
answerer thinks that communism is evil. Even if everything in those answers is true, it only
shows that mass murders are an originally unintended consequence of communism, while the mass
murders of Nazism are part of the ideology. For me, Nazism is an evil idea, and Communism is
a bad idea because it leads to evil things. This is a big difference. I think this is a great
question, and I hope there will be a true answer to this question, because I don't know the
answer. – Pakk
11 hours ago
@Pakk - there's two competing philosophies (and no, they aren't communism and capitalism :).
One posits that things ought to be judged on the basis of intent. The other posits that
things ought to be judged on the basis of outcome (aka the road to hell is paved with good
intentions). – user4012
1 hour ago
Fundamental to communist ideology is the common ownership of the means of production and
abolishment of social classes and social hierarchy. In practice, that means no (or very few)
private property rights, and forced redistribution of wealth from those who are most able to
produce to those who are less able or unwilling to do so.
Private property and the exclusive access to the fruits of one's own labor are fundamental
human rights under natural law. In order for communism to be moral, it requires everyone to
voluntarily cooperate with each other towards a common goal. Unfortunately, people do not
work this way. They are different in their ambitions, in their capabilities, and in their
values. These differences cause different outcomes, cause some to be more successful than
others, and even cause differences by which success is measured in the first place. But
communism requires collectivism in order to work. Communism must eliminate those variations
of the individual in order to harmonize with the collective good. This is absolutely
counterintuitive to everything about human nature.
In order to realize communist goals, private property and the individual's right to their
own labor must be seized from them for the sake of the collective. And because this is
antithetical to individual freedom, communist governments must also work to eliminate
dissent. Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of
opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive
measures until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country where
everyone lives in fear.
In light of the authoritarian oppression of every communist regime in the history of ever,
there are those who still make the argument that the idea of communism is good; it's
just been "done wrong" by every communist state that has attempted it. However, this is not
true. Communism is a fundamentally flawed ideology at its core. Its goals are attractive in
principle, but completely unworkable in practice.
Communist governments must necessarily use coercion to achieve the social harmony they
promise, depriving the individual of the right to choose their own destiny -- especially if
those choices lead to better outcomes for them than for others. This is why every communist
state has been a totalitarian nightmare replete with rampant and gross human rights
violations. That is the inevitable destiny of any communist regime because it is utterly and
completely incompatible with individual freedom and conscience.
Communists would argue that people already do not have full access to the result of their
labor (because capitalists own the means of production and thus collect a surplus value from
that labor). I also think that you make a pretty big jump from "right to their labor must be
seized" (which is already a reach) to "terror" and living in fear. If you make that jump, and
would agree that workers currently do not have full access to the result of their labor
(which is fair to say), you could also say that people in capitalist societies must live in
terror and fear (which is not generally the case). – tim
yesterday
@tim People living in capitalist societies who do not own 100% of their labor (per your
definition) give up the percentage to their employer so that they do not have to own the risk
of investing in equipment/office space/etc to be able to perform their labor and the risk of
having to actually turn the labor into something someone else is willing to buy.
Additionally, everyone is free to try to own 100% of their labor by investing in it and
selling it themselves. If anything, the only thing laborers have to fear is that they must
sell their labor to someone in order to pay taxes. – IllusiveBrian
yesterday
@IllusiveBrian Even if you calculate "risk" into the equation, there is still a surplus; it's
why large companies end up with billions in revenue. I don't see how say a coal miner could
bypass that by "selling it themselves"; it's not a realistic possibility. But my point was
that capitalist exploitation is comparable to the "no right to their labor" argument by OP.
Both have to be enforced, but saying that it has to be enforced with terror is a reach
(anti-communists might argue that it needs to be in communism, and anti-capitalists might
argue that the same is true for capitalism). – tim
yesterday
This answer is focussing more on why communism is bad (and is an opinion piece regardless of
the validity or not of said opinion). Perhaps focussing on why it is viewed in this
way instead of stating said view would make this a less controversial answer. –
wizzwizz4
10 hours ago
TL;DR: because communism did, in fact, kill people. Between 23 million (low estimate) and
100 million (high estimate) of them killed by regimes that collectively self-branded
themselves as led by "communist" parties.
The question contains two premises, both 100% false:
That the only reason Communism is seen as evil is "because propaganda" and "because the
people with that view are uneducated/stupid".
Contrary to that, as the answer below shows, there's objective evidence leading people
to consider Communism evil.
That Communism is universally unpopular in the West, especially USA.
Let's expand on both points:
Is it merely due to the propaganda during the Cold War? I find that doubtful. That was
so long ago, and the people who were subject to that propaganda are all old or dead now. So
why have Americans and other westerners not smartened up by now and understood what
Communism is?
It's a nice theory that is fully contradicted by the fact that among the most
anti-communist segments of population are those who know best - immigrants from "communist"
(well, socialist) states. People from former USSR, refugees from Castro's Cuba, Venezuelans
who escaped Chavez's regime - they are all far more anti-Communist than the average
Westerner. Because:
They know exactly what the reality of living in your "communist" dream entails.
They know their history. My grandmother was almost repressed because she happened to
study genetics when Lysenko was in power. Many members of my extended family were repressed
during Stalin's times. She also remembers "Doctor's Plot" (and the fact that Stalin
missed out on getting rid most Soviet Jews by a few weeks when he died unexpectedly).
Or, for less personalized history lessons:
The editor of the latter book quantifies the answer for why communism should be
considered as evil as nazism:
Communist regimes have killed approximately 100 million people in contrast
to the approximately 25 million victims of the Nazis
So yes, people who "understood what Communism is" are actually the ones most
anti-Communist.
Secondly, Communism is actually pretty popular in the US/West, especially
among millennials - who have been shown to not even know basic facts about history of
communism.
According to a new survey, one third of millennial, generation "X" and "Z"
respondents believe that more people were killed while Bush was US president than under
the dictatorship of former Soviet Union leader Joseph Stalin.
Only 5 per cent of millennials were unfamiliar with the former US president - his
decision to invade Iraq took place within recent memory - while 18 per cent were
unfamiliar with Stalin
Re: "My grandmother was almost repressed [...] Many members of my extended family were
repressed during Stalin's times": I think you may be using the wrong word here; Stalin's
regime was definitely repressive, but "repress" is very vague, to the point that "almost
repressed" is meaningless. Did you mean something more specific? – ruakh
6 hours ago
The poll says 7% prefer a communist country while 44% prefer a socialist country. The same
poll also says that most people don't know or misidentify what socialism or communism really
are. Is it not, then, misleading to say "51%... prefer to live in socialist or communist
country..." in support of the premise that "Communism is actually pretty
popular..." ? – canadianer
3 hours ago
Marx wrote about the inevitability of a paradise of post scarcity once communism is achieved,
but very strongly implied that we need to climb over some well dressed corpses to get there.
It seems pretty expected that the people currently wearing those clothes aren't going to want
that.
Negative news reports weren't that long ago. Whether this is propaganda or not is
increasingly hard to say, but:
Two of the countries Americans are most concerned about are still aligned with communism.
There are still reports of humans rights violations. Some fairly brutal suppressions happened
in the last 40 years, which is withing living memory (not everyone is a millennial no matter
what the internet says).
I remember watching The Wall being smashed and a man stopping a tank on TV. And they will
live on in the internet, forever counterrevolutionary, with commentary about why they are
important. These are events that stick with some people as strongly as One Small Step, I Have
A Dream, or a man burning as he falls.
Some of the none governmental propaganda against communism is still regularly used. 1984
and Animal Farm are fairly hard to avoid in American school and Ayn Rand is surprisingly
often mentioned.
@user4012 it's in many school libraries...or at least was. I had it as part of coursework in
college. My son had it as a book he could read (suggested, not required) in high school.
– blip
yesterday
Looked up Ayn Rand rom wikipedia: "In politics, she condemned the initiation of force as
immoral,[3] and opposed collectivism and statism as well as anarchism, and instead supported
laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as the system based on recognizing individual
rights". What's so controversial about disliking oppressive regimes and supporting individual
rights? – Shautieh
3 hours ago
I don't particularly see how these reflect negatively on communism as an ideology. Rather,
they are examples of failed/inefficient policies by specific authoritarian governments, and
in some of the above might have even been politically motivated. If one were to ascribe these
failings to any particular form of government, I would personally attribute them to the
authoritarian underpinnings of the states in question, not their goals of communism.
Moreover, states like the USSR weren't communist in any form (they were socialist, both in
the constitution and in practice). – user41281
yesterday
user41281 The parent question asked "why it's so easy to ban Nazi symbols and so hard to ban
communist symbols" I thinks it's fair to say many evils have been done under those symbols,
it is strange they are seen in a positive light. The symbols represent specific
implementations of Communism. I personally think communism as an ideology is destined to lead
to tyranny but even if you don't think that's the case they symbols were used by some
horrific tyrannies. – Dan Walmsley
yesterday
@MoziburUllah Colonialism isn't required by capitalism. Communal farming is required by
communism. Also, tu
quoque is a logical fallacy. – Chloe
yesterday
Colonialism and slavery is historically linked with Capitalism in the same way that Communism
is historically linked with the atrocities you've mentioned; its part of a even-handed
critique to look at both sides of an argument, as opposed to criticism which is just
one-sided. – Mozibur Ullah
yesterday
@Mozibur Ullah: Linked by whom? Usually as propaganda by the left, no? Certainly we can find
colonialism and slavery in cultures that pre-date modern capitalism: Rome and Islam to pick
just two well-known instances. – jamesqf
yesterday
Why is communism considered as evil (like fascism and nazism) in western countries?
Simple answer is them vs us. This was previously nationality, but cold-war era saw this
them vs us line drawn more on economic lines as alliances spanned multiple nations. I'll try
to ignore the actuals behind why communism is evil and try to focus more on the perception of
why it's remained the big evil within western society.
It should be noted that if you include deaths from sweatshops, activities outlined in
'confessions of an economic hitman', and a handful of wars...capitalism likely has quite the
death toll behind it as well, but where do you draw the line between imperial ambitions and
capitalism...and if we're willing to draw that line for capitalism, where does that line lay
for the communists death toll? Ideal theory vs less than ideal implementation is always a
factor in this discussion, usually people have to wear pretty heavy blinders to declare why
our system is good and just while their system is corrupt and evil.
Much longer answer, a lot of this is generational. Younger generations are more and more
embracing a 'help your neighbor' viewpoint associating capitalism with a 'Individual at the
expense of everyone else' ala Martin Shkreli vs a communism 'collective looking out for the
good of one another', which seems to have caused a bit of a leftist tilt in the younger
generation (probably a bit to do with people get screwed over by capitalism as well and the
much greener grass of communism is a dream to address that). Of course, this is entirely a
dream world and has little to do with what communism actually is, yet a large number of
youths in capitalist nations have somehow come to the conclusion that communism is
preferable. Teaching this younger generation what the implementation of communism actually
looks like is often done in the 'communism is evil' standpoint, perpetuating the 'communism
is evil' viewpoint.
This is greatly exacerbated in the US, which shows a weird mix of misunderstanding and
political posturing...we've already got an answer claiming all socialism is communism (same
people that use 'liberal' as a curseword), which makes a pretty good example for this. Very
much an exercise of reductio ad absurdum in action, suggesting some social support is
countered by all social support is communism and therefore evil. Much of the wealthy within
the US is generally against using their money to finance social constructs (healthcare is a
big one here, but it's used against a pretty wide array of social programs) and a consistent
tactic to whip up support is to use the lines "this is socialism, all socialism is communism,
communism is evil, therefore "insert hot topic like universal healthcare" is evil. This
political posturing is a heavy reason this 'communism is evil!' argument continues in
America.
But with all that said...the key reason why Communism is regarded as evil can be reduced
to freedom. "communism = someone else/collective telling us what to do and how to behave" vs
"capitalism is the individual choosing what to do and how to behave". People who have had
their freedom denied will heavily resist what appears to be taking freedom away.
The catch with capitalism is that it can equally end up being someone else telling us what to
do and how to behave. It's not a simple contrast in that regard. – blip
yesterday
@blip - Agreed entirely, I'm tried to keep my talking points to perception and not the
reality...more often than not, perceptions are reduced down to the simplest form. –
Twelfth
yesterday
The base of socialism is higher tax and more control over the economy in order to "help the
poor". If one amplifies this to total [everything is taken away by tax, every economical
decision is controlled], then one gets exactly in a situation that is equivalent with
communism.
So "communism" is just the extreme of socialism. To be general, i will speak about
socialism mostly, but it applies to communism too.
Socialism, as any other social order : has a basic categorization : voluntary or enforced.
By the word "socialism" most people mean the one enforced by state, which is of course
violent, as laws of the state are mandatory, and enforced by violence. Such socialism is
really bad, even if not by intention, but at least by results.
In the enforced socialism : the state [hence, and more precisely the rulers] gain power to
take away the private property of the people and control economical activity. This has 2
notable results :
The rulers can decide who will get rich and who will get broke. This is enormous
political power. The big power tempts any ruler : even if it intended to do good with
socialism, the power corrupts it very soon and it becomes a tyrant.
It hurts the economy.
People are less motivated to produce if more of their product is taken away from
them.
Control disrupts the market mechanism. A healthy market is one that does not
produce externality and there is enough competition to prevent economical exploitation.
Most markets, absence of state regulation, work in such a healthy state. The prices
established by these competitive markets make demand and supply to equal, by this they
organize the economy into maximal efficiency. As state regulation changes the state of
the markets, distort prices : they move the economy into an other, hence a less
efficient state.
In short time : exploitation of the economy and distribution of the stolen assets to the
poor is popular. This also strengthens the political power of the socialist ruler. But in the
long time : the effect on the economy is felt by the people, who then start to want political
change. In this stage the ruler, who has by now established a tyranny : has 2 choices :
Use the tyranny to oppress the people.
Exploit the economy in a faster way, distribute to poor more heavily to temporarily
hide the economic problem. This only postpones and deepens the problem.
What makes socialism especially dangerous idea is that it gives high power to the ruler,
hence is prone to tyranny. I said "prone". Socialism does not necessarily leads to tyranny.
In fact : most democratic countries today are socialist for decades. If socialism is applied
in a sufficiently small dose then the negative consequences are small too and the country can
survive it, even prosper.
Socialism and hitlerism are the same in their core principle, which is : "I have an idea
about how people should live. It is so good that we should gain power and attack people to
force them to live that way."
It is very important to see where the problem is. It is not in the social ideology
itself.
Many people have nationalistic feelings, and they are still harmless, even good,
positive people.
There are a few small voluntary communist communities, which do not force others to
live such way.
Most people have some idea about how they and other people should live. That alone is
not dangerous.
The problem is the idea that people should be violently attacked to enforce an idea.
Violence itself may be even a good thing. For example it is good to kill a person who is
committing mass shooting. Not only because it saves more lives than it takes, but because it
saves innocent life and takes guilty life. Even it is good to shoot a group of criminals who
are killing a single innocent person. What is then really bad about violence? It is the
initiation of it ["attack", "aggression"].
More precisely we should condemn not only initiation of violence, but more generally :
initiation of harm. Harm also contains theft.
Economic freedom [voluntary exchange of goods and services] does not need violence at all,
but restricting economic freedom does. Defending property right does need violence, but
robbery needs more. Theft is initiation of harm, while using force against theft is violence
and therefore harm too, but not initiation of harm.
You've done a great job of illustrating how communism is erroneously conflated with
socialism. Not exactly the point of the question, unless you were going with irony. –
Twelfth
yesterday
"help the poor" - it's to help the people regardless of wealth, middle class still use the
social structures. But you are badly mixing the two topics up, communism is political while
socialism is economical and you seem to have this driving point to say that socialism cannot
be achieved without a dictator which is completely false. Democratic socialism already exists
proving your answer to be complete paranoia and a perfect example of the 'communism is evil,
flee while you can' mantra. Hence my +1 for ironic answer award – Twelfth
yesterday
@Andy - Can one have a capitalist economy without the use of force? ;) Private property
rights don't enforce themselves, you know. – Obie 2.0
yesterday
@Andy The Internet is not in America. There is no "they". The European socialists are already
here, in the comments with you. Hello! – owjburnham
9 hours ago
I found the following article to be reasonable and consistent with my admittedly imperfect
understanding of pre-WW II Russian/Soviet history. The consistency for me was was in finding
a balance with the typically hyper-exaggerated claims of Western historians (evident to this
day) and the demonstrated behavior of Slavic Orthodox who tend be be far less excessive than
the West when it comes to war and genocide.
Regarding Jews in Russia, the article maintains that many were associated with betrayal of
Russia and many fought valiantly against the Western invaders so its a mixed bag in that
regard.
The article suggests that the Soviet Union concluded that it had 10 years to prepare for
the Western invasion that was meant to murder them all. They had to collectivize to release
labor for rapid industrialization and had to eliminate the anti-Russian 5th column. Only the
foregoing allowed the Soviet Union to survive and then defeat the Western invasion. It seems
quite plausible.
The article also debunks (sorry) claims of multi-million deaths from the famine and more
from the purges although this seems to still be a point of contention even among Russian
historians not slavishly following the Western party line.
I do recall that Gorbechev himself caused ire in the West when he stated that the numbers
killed by the purges were in the tens of thousands and not millions.
I think that it is time for Russia to write its own history without the slightest regard
of what the West will think. That holds even more so for Serbia.
-- Согласно внешнеполитической доктрине США само существование Советского Союза было несовместимо с американской безопасностью.
Изменилось ли, на Ваш взгляд, отношение США к России после официальной констатации окончания "холодной войны" и распада СССР?
-- К 1991 году, если судить по документам МВФ и ряду документов внутри самих США, американцами было проведено глубокое изучение
нашей экономики и морально-политического состояния и настроения советского народа. Конгресс США рассмотрел эти материалы и в результате
был принят закон 102 от 1992 года под оскорбительным для России названием "Закон о свободе для России и новых независимых государств".
Одновременно, осенью 1992 года, Объединённый комитет начальников штабов США доложил президенту и Конгрессу оценку состояния Вооружённых
Сил США, где в первом же абзаце 11-й главы "Специальные операции" говорится, что, не смотря на то, что руководители России взяли
на себя обязательства реформировать свои Вооружённые Силы и правоохранительные органы, Россия всё равно будет оставаться нашим главным
противником, требующим самого пристального внимания.
( Читать дальше...Свернуть ) -- Но можно ведь и сказать, что это были только первые постсоветские годы, и США, быть может, ещё находились под впечатлением
недавнего милитаристского с их точки зрения прошлого нашей страны? Просто-напросто не спешили нам доверять.
-- Можно сказать, что тогда ещё было горячее время, "лихие 1990-е", но Несколько лет тому назад Норвежский институт стратегических
исследований опубликовал работу, написанную бывшим советским офицером, который, вероятно, когда-то "ушёл" на Запад (я специально
не исследовал это обстоятельство) под названием "Может ли территория бывшей сверхдержавы стать полем боя". В ней он, исходя из собственного
опыта и на основании анализа многих документов, даёт заключение, какое сопротивление на территории России могут встретить военные
подразделения стран НАТО: в каком месте их будут встречать камнями, в каком месте будут стрелять, а в каком будут приветствовать.
Насколько нам удалось понять, в дальнейшем наблюдая за судьбой этой работы, она прошла большой круг исследования в странах НАТО
и была очень серьёзно принята в США. Они, конечно, никогда в этом не признаются, но это так. Так что я полностью уверен, что со времён
крушения Советского Союза отношение США к нам не изменилось. Сегодняшнее внимание США к России -- это внимание к не поверженному
окончательно в 1991 году противнику. И США руководствуются этим принципом в осуществлении своей внешней политики.
-- Если США, по-прежнему нам не доверяют и, мягко говоря, не способствуют нашему развитию, то почему они не боялись возрождения
послевоенной Германии, своего реального врага на поле боя?
-- Возрождения послевоенной Германии американцы не боялись, как не боятся её усиления сейчас, потому что в 1949 году, прежде чем
окончательно сформировалась ФРГ, которой разрешили иметь Бундесвер, Германию по рукам и ногам связали соглашениями с США и другими
странами НАТО. Бывший начальник военной контрразведки Бундесвера генерал Камоса опубликовал книгу "Секретные игры тайных служб",
где прямо пишет, что согласно послевоенным германо-американским соглашениям каждый новый канцлер Германии, приходящий к управлению
страной, должен сразу после выборов приехать в США и подписаться под документом под названием "Канцлер-акт". Срок окончания "Канцлер-акта"
-- 2099 год.
Процитирую вам выдержку из "Секретных игр тайных служб":
"21 мая 1949 года Федеральная разведка опубликовала под грифом "Совершенно секретно" тайный государственный договор, в котором
были изложены основные принципы подходов победителей к суверенитету Федеральной республики до 2099 года "
Останется ли к этому времени немец немцем? Останется ли к этому времени Бундесвер способным воевать так, как он воевал во Второй
Мировой войне? Каково вообще конечное назначение "Канцлер-акта"? Вот какие вопросы возникают при чтении этой книги.
Кстати, генерал Камоса был очень осторожен, поэтому не осмелился издать "Секретные игры тайных служб" в Германии, а вынужден был
выпустить книгу в Австрии. Был небольшой шум. Наши корреспонденты, которые прочитали "Секретные игры тайных служб" в Австрии, опубликовали
маленькую заметку: отдаёт ли себе отчёт генерал Камоса какую "бомбу" он выдал? Вместе с тем они задались вопросом: а что подписали
в 1991 году наши руководители? Политический обозреватель "Независимой газеты" Фаенко полгода назад в одной из своих статей выложил
свою "бомбу" Он пишет, что в США очень многие видные политические деятели и крупные бизнесмены недовольны тем, что Россия не придерживается
негласных соглашений, которые были подписаны её руководителями.
-- Была ли, на Ваш взгляд, у СССР вообще хоть когда-нибудь пусть теоретическая возможность стать полноценным партнёром США?
Ну, хотя бы на пике советско-американского сотрудничества во Второй Мировой войне.
-- Нет, потому что вина за то, что немцы в 1941 году напали на СССР, в том числе лежит и на США. Об этом почему-то сейчас не вспоминают,
но ведь в 1940-м году советник английского премьер-министра Черчилля -- Монтгомери Хайд, который помогал Уильяму Доновану (один из
руководителей американских спецслужб -- авт.) создавать Управление стратегических служб, передал ему для вручения президенту США
Рузвельту письмо Черчилля, где тот писал: поскольку США не находятся в состоянии войны с Германией, то не могли бы вы побудить Гитлера
оставить в покое Балканы и ускорить мероприятия в отношении России. С той поры прошло уже много лет и многим на Западе кажется, что
про это письмо все забыли. Но забыть можно лишь тогда, когда ты не хочешь помнить о чём-то.
Сегодня никто не вспоминает так же, что на самом деле подготовка ко Второй Мировой войне началась в 1929 году со встречи американского
президента Герберта Гувера с виднейшими предпринимателями США из центра Рассела; есть у них такое тайное общество. Оно заявило Гуверу:
"Приближается кризис, попытаться избежать трудного положения, в котором могут оказаться США, можно лишь изменив расстановку сил
в мире. Для этого надо оказать помощь России, чтобы она окончательно избавилась от разрухи -- последствий гражданской войны, и помочь
Германии избавиться от тисков Версальского договора". "Но на это нужны деньги, -- возразил Гувер, -- несколько миллиардов. Да и для
чего нам это нужно, что будет потом?". "А потом надо столкнуть Россию и Германию лбами для того, чтобы, воспрянув после кризиса,
США оказались только один на один с оставшимся из этих противников".
Такие деньги в результате были выделены. И те же самые американские концерны, которые помогали России восстанавливать хозяйство
-- строили заводы, участвовали в создании Днепрогэса -- восстанавливали и оснащали Германию. Не зря же дед президента США Буша --
Прескотт Буш, который в 1930-е годы помогал немцам, сразу после начала войны был лишён права управлять своим имуществом, исходя из
того, что США в данный момент находятся в состоянии войны с Германией. Всё это документально зафиксировано, в том числе и в пятитомнике
американского экономиста и историка Энтони Саттона. А что было после войны известно: американцы на протяжении всего 20 века вели
очень серьёзную, продуманную работу по уничтожению оставшегося у них одного сильного противника в лице СССР.
Кстати, наглядно принцип выборочной памяти в отношении истории демонстрировал сегодня, например, Сванидзе в своей передаче "Суд
времени", где регулярно нарочно умалчивает о важных фактах, ну, а если собеседник ему о них напоминает, то он его быстро обрывает.
Смотреть эту передачу, конечно, было противно, но интересно, потому что она показывает глубину работы американцев по осуществлению
операции влияния на противную сторону. В Америке же разработана очень интересная система влияния на большие людские массивы, для
того, чтобы убедить их принять американскую точку зрения по тому или иному поводу.
-- С 1979 по 1991 год Вы возглавляли Управление нелегальной разведки КГБ СССР, поэтому наверняка лучше всех знаете, каковы,
кроме чисто гуманитарного навязывания американского взгляда на прошлое и настоящее той или иной страны, ещё цели деятельности "системы
влияния на большие людские массивы"?
-- Например, чтобы получить во взаимоотношениях с тем или иным государством какое-либо дипломатическое преимущество. Именно поэтому
политическая линия США по разрушению внутреннего спокойного содержания той или иной страны глубоко продумана, а не локальна и спонтанна,
как иногда кажется. Для этого во многих странах создаются прослойки людей, распространяющих те идеи, которые им диктуют на Западе,
чтобы облегчить ему овладение конкретной территорией. Ведь ещё Сунь Цзы говорил, что лучше покорить страну, не сражаясь. США, начав
серьезно изучать нас в 1917-м году, больше никогда не оставляли вне поля своего зрения, занимались не просто аналитической или научной
работой, а вели и очень серьёзную разведывательную деятельность.
Кстати, интересный факт. После взрыва башен-близнецов в Нью-Йорке американцы провели большую работу по изучению опыта борьбы советской
власти с басмачеством. Между прочим, и развитие терроризма в странах Ближнего Востока, Юго-Восточной Азии, и на нашей территории
-- явление отнюдь не случайное. Если внимательно посмотреть, кто учился в специальных школах на территории США и Великобритании,
то становится понятно, что именно там готовили моджахедов и ваххабитов, скажем, для подрывной деятельности в Уфе или на Северном
Кавказе.
А то, что происходило в Татарстане в районе Зеленодольска -- было, видимо, подготовлено англичанами, я имею в виду волнения среди
мусульман, спровоцированные ваххабитами, которых, к счастью, сами татары быстро подавили; люди, организовавшие эти волнения, ведь
ездили на подготовку в Англию, и очень много было таких людей. Или взять сложности, которые сейчас переживает Башкирия. Они тоже
имеют западные корни. И удивляться тут нечему, потому что американцы создали специальное учреждение -- Объединённый университет по
подготовке лидеров антитеррористических организаций, под эгидой которого и готовятся кадры для организации волнений в различных регионах
мира, а не только для реальной борьбы с террором.
Тут надо ещё сказать вот что Запад использует территорию Афганистана и территории наших Среднеазиатских республик для проникновения
в Россию. В Афганистане готовят людей, которые создают очаги напряжённости в Киргизии, Таджикистане, Узбекистане В данном случае
американцы осуществляют план, который изложен в работе "Задачи ВВС США на Северном Кавказе и в Средней Азии" -- разделять бывшие
республики СССР на куски, чтобы тут же подбирать то, что отвалится.
-- Вы несколько лет работали резидентом советской разведки в Нью-Йорке и знаете Америку и её политическое устройство, что называется,
изнутри. Скажите, может ли политика США в отношении России колебаться в зависимости от личностных особенностей тех или иных персон
американского правящего истаблишмента? Насколько независимы, по Вашему мнению, в принятии решений высшие государственные деятели
США?
-- Несколько лет назад Конгресс США возложил на президента в качестве одной из приоритетных его задач работу с общественными организациями,
а руководитель Госдепартамента США Кондолиза Райс незадолго до своего ухода с этого поста утвердила специальную директиву "О задачах
Госдепартамента при осуществлении специальных операций политического влияния", где расписаны функции каждого дипломатического сотрудника:
от посла до самого маленького драгомана.
В контексте ответа на ваш вопрос большой интерес представляет работа, подготовленная Rand Corporation (неофициальный мозговой
центр правительства США -- авт.) "Внешняя политика США до и после Буша", где дана оценка целому комплексу политических мероприятий
правительства США и выработана национальная стратегия в отношении стран, которые представляют для США большой интерес. Так что политика
США по отношению к России и к другим интересным им странам -- это тщательно продуманный подход при подготовке любых официальных или
неофициальных мероприятий. Другое дело, что выводы, которые делают те или иные американские аналитики из того же Rand Corporation,
не всегда воспринимаются администрацией США при разработке конкретных мероприятий -- и это святое право любого государственного деятеля
-- но то, что к ним внимательно прислушиваются, это точно.
-- Декларировали когда-нибудь вслух США свои интересы к недрам СССР или идея освоить природные богатства нашей страны стала
витать в воздухе только в постсоветское время?
-- В отношении экономических богатств нашей страны у США аппетиты были большими всегда. Мало кто знает, что в конце Великой Отечественной
войны, когда странами-участницами антигитлеровской коалиции обсуждалось будущее мира, были приняты два решения, цитирую:
"создать Организацию объединённых наций с Советом безопасности -- как прообраз мирового правительства" и -- на нём особенно настаивали
американские миллиардеры -- "создать трёхстороннюю комиссию для осуществления постепенных попыток слияния экономик США и СССР".
И такая комиссия была создана. Она существовала. Она действовала. Когда я работал в Америке, мне приходилось принимать участие
в некоторых встречах с Рокфеллером, и по его вопросам мне становилось понятно, что в результате хотят от СССР американцы.
Для них главной политической целью работы в этой комиссии было, конечно, полное поглощение нашей экономики, о чём некоторые люди
из ЦК КПСС, стоявшие тогда у руля нашей экономической политики, знали или догадывались, но участвовали в этой игре, надеясь в свою
очередь перехитрить противника и посредством этой комиссии усовершенствовать торговые контакты между СССР и Западом. В некоторых
случаях им это удавалось, в некоторых нет, а вот Западу, чтобы полностью реализовать свои замыслы понадобилось, как мы видим, около
50-ти лет.
-- Судя по тому, что Вы пишите в своей книге "Операция "Президент". От "холодной войны" до перезагрузки", всё ужасное для России
только начинается:
"Мир вступил в фазу наиболее опасного противостояния -- цивилизованного. Цена поражения в этом противостоянии -- полное исчезновение
с лица Земли одной из цивилизаций".
-В данном случае под словом "цивилизация" понимается система или системы ценностей, объединяющих людей разных национальностей,
живущих в разных государствах и исповедующих разные религии. Могущественные транснациональные олигархические кланы уже определили
будущее всего человечества, а академические круги Запада даже придали ему для большей убедительности научно-теоретическую форму.
Практический процесс глобализации уже идет, и с каждым годом мир неуклонно приближается к торжеству нового мирового порядка.
При этом история Запада не дает никаких оснований для надежды на то, что его правящие круги предоставят незападным странам и народам
необходимые ресурсы и материальные блага, которые западные государства целеустремленно отбирали у них на протяжении столетий. Вся
мировая история убедительно свидетельствует, что они никогда и ни при каких обстоятельствах не пойдут на уменьшение своего потребления
ради выживания незападных народов. В этих условиях России уготована участь тельца, который должен быть принесен в жертву "для блага
всего человечества", как и предлагал почти сто лет назад личный советник президента США Вильсона полковник Хауз.
-- Каково в этой ситуации будет значение органов госбезопасности, призванных охранять суверенитет страны?
-- Голландский ученый, лауреат Нобелевской премии Ян Тинберген прямо говорил:
"Обеспечение безопасности нельзя отдать на усмотрение суверенных национальных государств. < > Мы должны стремиться к созданию
децентрализованного планетарного суверенитета и сети сильных международных институтов, которые будут его осуществлять ".
Вот так. Глобальная структуризация и иерархизация мира при одновременном упразднении суверенитета национальных государств откроет
олигархии свободный доступ ко всем природным ресурсам планеты.
-- Давая оценку советскому политическому наступлению периода разрядки, администрация США делала вывод, что активность советских
разведывательных операций в пять раз превышает размеры деятельности ЦРУ и союзников. Но если иметь в виду, что могильщиком СССР всё-таки
стали США, то возникает резонный вопрос: а почему же мы проиграли?
-- Американский разведчик, бывший резидент США в Индии Гарри Розицки в своей книге написал, что если бы в США была такая нелегальная
разведывательная служба, как в Советском Союзе, численностью хотя бы человек в 100, то Америка могла бы чувствовать себя спокойно.
Так что, разведка не проиграла. Проиграла страна в целом. А проиграла, потому что у нас не было времени. Ведь практически весь период
первых пятилеток, когда нам удалось кое-что создать, и то происходил в условиях борьбы. Причём борьбы, как извне, так и в результате
очень серьёзных споров и разногласий в политическом руководстве СССР. Причём эти разногласия были и в последние годы существования
СССР.
В частности на примере взаимодействия разведки и политической власти СССР могу сказать, что работа наших руководителей по использованию
установленных нами связей в политических интересах государства в какой-то мере была ослаблена. Каждый из руководителей считал свою
точку зрения истинной в последней инстанции, у них были серьёзные споры друг с другом. Скажем, по делу Шевченко (в 1970-е годы зам
представителя СССР в ООН, сбежавший на Запад ) мне Юрий Владимирович (Андропов) прямо сказал:
"Я прочитал всё, что ты писал. Ты был прав, и никто тебя наказывать не будет".
Дело в том, что заподозрив Шевченко в измене, я, как резидент нашей разведки в США, стал сигнализировать об этом в Москву. А в
результате получил запрет на наблюдение за Шевченко! Тем не менее, я сам себе сказал: "Нет, так дело не пойдёт!" и продолжал отправлять
компрометирующие Шевченко материалы в центр.
-- Запрет трогать Шевченко был внутриведомственным конфликтом и нежеланием бросать тень на МИД или в Москве его берегли агенты
влияния во властных структурах?
-- Мне сложно сейчас сказать, почему мне не разрешали трогать Шевченко, но я знаю, что влияние самого Шевченко на наших руководителей
было достаточно высоким. Он и его семья были в очень близких отношениях с Громыко. Кроме этого у Шевченко была ещё группа хороших
знакомых на разных должностях и в разных позициях, которые могли ему подыгрывать, оказывая влияние на наших руководителей, которые
рассматривали мои материалы по Шевченко. Поскольку Шевченко проработал в Нью-Йорке большой промежуток времени, мои предшественники,
которые там с ним общались, тоже чувствовали себя немного связанными, боялись получить выговор, если что-то всплывёт, и не поехать
потом заграницу. Это естественные вещи Бывают в жизни, к сожалению, такие истории. (Вздыхает). Трояновский (советский дипломат, следующий,
после Шевченко, представитель СССР в ООН -- авт.) тогда меня прямо спросил:
"А что, разве не может советский человек выбрать себе новую родину?"
Я ему ответил:
"Родина -- одна, можно сменить место жительства".
И нажил ещё одного недруга.
-- Тогда, быть может, одной из внутренних причин гибели Советского Союза было то, что, как Вы выразились "работа наших руководителей
по использованию установленных нами связей в политических интересах государства в какой-то мере была ослаблена", что, говоря простым
языком означает: информацию разведчиков принимали к сведению, но использовать не спешили. Вы ощущали политический или дипломатический
эффект от своей работы?
-- В принципе, ощущал, и даже бывал на приёмах у наших руководителей, которые знакомились с результатами работы нелегальной разведки
и принимали на её основании решения, но, с другой стороны, скажем, в моём личном деле, как мне говорили, есть резолюция ещё самого
Никиты Сергеевича Хрущёва, которого в 1960-х годах я, как резидент советской разведки в Китае, предупреждал о готовящихся столкновениях
на Даманском, а Хрущёв на материале с этой моей информацией написал:
"Не верю".
А ведь мы тогда специально отправили людей в район сосредоточения китайских подразделений напротив Даманского, где тогда жили
бывшие белогвардейцы; эти люди встретились там с нашим древним "источником", который рассказал, что китайцы прогнали его с собственной
пасеки, построили на её месте гигантский ящик с песком, в котором воссоздали всю территорию по ту сторону границы, которая принадлежала
СССР, и проводят там военные учения.
После этой информации мы изучили положение дел на китайских железных дорогах -- какие и куда осуществляются перевозки, поговорили
с иностранцами, а окончательный вывод, к сожалению, оказавшийся верным, нам помогло сделать одно обстоятельство. У меня была встреча
с представителями концерна "Крупп", которым мы поставляли водку и которых по целому ряду вопросов обхаживали китайцы, и один из этих
представителей мне прямо сказал:
"Вы что -- слепые? Не видите, что китайцы делают? А я вижу, потому что я -- "Крупп", я -- сталь, а сталь -- это война!".
Вот и весь разговор, который тем не менее переполнил чашу наших догадок. Мы обобщили информацию и сделали вывод: следует ожидать
вооружённой провокации в районе Даманского. Но Хрущёв нам не поверил.
Заместитель покойного Александра Михайловича Сахаровского (в то время руководитель ПГУ КГБ СССР) генерал-лейтенант Мортин, который
в это время сидел на его месте, когда я приехал в отпуск и с ним встретился, сказал мне: "Слушай, ты меня в инфаркт вгонишь своими
телеграммами!" (Смеётся). Его можно понять, была ведь трудная обстановка. В Китае шла культурная революция, всё больше и больше приобретающая
антисоветский и антирусский характер, в которой, кстати, активно участвовали бывшие троцкисты, которых выкинули из США и почему-то
бросили в Китай; это произошло в разгар маккартизма в конце 1940-х годов. Я с некоторыми из них был знаком. Хорошо знал Анну Луизу
Стронг, Ванштейна. Все они хорошо говорили по-русски.
- Слушаю и не понимаю, за что же Вас тогда было поздравлять с днём рождения самому Мао Цзэдуну?
-- Мао Цзэдун не мог меня поздравить. Это была шутка моих коллег. Когда я справлял в Китае один из своих дней рождения, ребята,
которые входили в состав нашей резидентуры, изготовили "сообщение" сводки "Синьхуа" (китайское информационное агентство -- авт.)
по этому событию. (Смеётся). Спустя много лет после этого случая, когда я приехал на работу в Нью-Йорк, где встречал своё 50-летие,
то застал там несколько моих бывших сотрудников, которые хорошо помнили тот наш китайский период. Они-то и принесли и положили передо
мной рулон телетайпной ленты, где сообщалось, что Юрия Дроздова с юбилеем поздравил Мао Цзэдун. Я говорю:
"Опять сотворили провокацию?"
Тут надо понять, что "американцы" и "китайцы" были в разведке двумя внутренне доброжелательно соперничающими структурами, а эта
шутка дала мне понять, что большая легальная резидентура в США приняла меня за своего.
-- Возвращаясь к Китаю Как я понимаю, в 1960-е годы разглядеть истоки китайского экономического чуда было ещё нельзя? Разведке
не из чего было делать такие далеко идущие выводы?
-- Когда в 1968 году я заканчивал свою работу на посту резидента советской разведки в Китае, мне из центра прислали телеграмму:
"Не смотря на то, что ваша работа в Китае завершена, Юрий Владимирович просит вас задержаться на месяц и написать свои соображения
относительно положения в Китае и перспектив советско-китайских отношений".
В течении этого месяца я написал 103 страницы, где среди прочего было сказано, что ситуация, которая складывается в настоящее
время в Китае изменчива, китайцы решают вопрос создания новой общественной формации, но в этом нет ничего удивительного, к этому
надо относится терпимо и исходить из того, что китайцы будут использовать в интересах своей страны передовые элементы как социалистической,
так и капиталистической систем.
После моего возвращения из Китая прошло больше года, когда мне однажды позвонил Андропов: "Возвращаю тебе твой отчёт по Китаю"
и отдал мне мой материал. И добавил: "На нём есть пометки. Знаешь, чьи?" Пожимаю плечами:
"Нет, не знаю". "Эта пометка такого-то, эта такого-то, а вот эта такого-то -- называет Андропов фамилии высоких политических деятелей.
-- А вообще-то смело написано!"
-- Правда, что в кабинете одного из американских контрразведчиков висел портрет Андропова?
-- Да, правда. Это был начальник отделения ФБР в штате Нью-Джерси. Это было в середине 1970-х. Лично я этого портрета не видел,
его видел наш сотрудник, который поддерживал контакты с ФБР по обмену наших товарищей, которые тогда сидели в центральной нью-йоркской
тюрьме. Энгера и Черняева. Кстати, фактически их выдал как раз Шевченко, хотя, в принципе, их не должны были поймать, однако, во
время одной из операций Черняева и Энгера задержали, потому что мы не учли, что американцы пустят в воздух небольшой спортивный самолётик,
с которого и будут вести наблюдение за нашими разведчиками. Так вот. Когда наш сотрудник был в кабинете у начальника отделения ФБР,
он поднял глаза, увидел на стене портрет Андропова и страшно удивился. Был ответ:
"А чего ты удивляешься? Я что, не могу повесить портрет руководителя лучшей разведки мира?"
-- Было ли с Андроповым у СССР перспектив выжить больше, чем с любым другим советским лидером? Каковы Ваши впечатления об Андропове?
-- Помню, Семичастный (в начале 1960-х руководитель КГБ СССР -- авт.) впервые отправил меня на доклад к Андропову, как к заведующему
отделом социалистических стран ЦК. Я не ожидал, что встречу в ЦК абсолютно другого, нежели остальные партийные руководители человека,
с которым можно разговаривать, интересного; мы просидели с Андроповым тогда больше 4-х часов, он расспрашивал о Китае, а в это время
к нему в кабинет заходили и выходили люди, некоторых Андропов оставлял:
"Сиди, слушай, тебе это нужно".
Андропов, например, читал всё: и приятное, и неприятное, а ведь были и такие руководители, которые читали только приятную информацию.
Андропов никогда никому не мстил. Если видел, что у человека что-то не получается, то просто переводил его на другую работу, а
если, к примеру, он убирал чекиста совершившего какую-то ошибку в другое подразделение, то, получив дополнительное объяснение, почему
человек ошибся, мог и изменить свою точку зрения. Помню, как-то во время нашего доклада Андропову, Юрий Владимирович сказал, что
у него есть другая, отличная от нашей, информация. Я возразил: "Это не так". Андропов говорит:
"Сколько надо дней, чтобы проверить, кто прав: я или ты?" "Дней 40-50. Сложные условия".
Крючков меня потом упрекал, зачем я среагировал так грубо, но я сказал, что Андропов с давних пор просил меня говорить только
правду. Спустя срок меня встречает тот же Крючков:
"Ну как?" "К сожалению, прав оказался я". (Смеётся).
Сейчас ФСБ готовит к выходу книгу "Команда Андропова", куда я написал свои впечатления об отношениях с Юрием Владимировичем, которые
озаглавил "Ю.В.Андропов (на партучёте в нелегальной разведке)". (Улыбается). Он ведь действительно был членом нашей партийной организации.
Приходил. Но не каждый раз, человек он всё-таки был очень занятый.
-- Каковы были максимальные сроки пребывания разведчиков на нелегальном положении? И, кстати, когда нелегала было подготовить
проще: в Ваше время или сейчас?
-- В те годы, когда приходилось работать нам, будущий нелегал зачастую не имел тех качеств, которые имеют сегодня самые обычные
люди; у наших сотрудников, к примеру, изначально не было зубастой хватки людей, занимающихся бизнесом. Поэтому нередко приходилось
смотреть, какие личностные качества присущи конкретному человеку и фактически давать ему второе образование, от средней школы --
до высшего. У нас не было нелегалов, которые знали бы только один иностранный язык, минимум 2-3. То есть мы проделывали огромную
работу.
В одном случае, самый короткий срок подготовки нелегала для конкретной цели у нас составил 7 лет, после чего человек 3 года отработал
за рубежом и украсил свою грудь 2-мя орденами и знаком "Почётный чекист". Естественно, что срок подготовки нелегала зависит от поставленной
перед ним цели. А цель бывает разная: от хорошего места, где он может спокойно жить и работать, до сейфа какого-нибудь зарубежного
руководителя. В этом смысле самый длинный период от начала работы в нелегальных условиях до выполнения поставленного задания составил
17 лет; человек этот, к слову, вернулся Героем Советского Союза.
"... Kotz and Weir's "Russia's Path From Gorbachev to Putin" is decent as an explanation. ..."
"... To sum it up, laws in 1986-87 effectively criminalized the 'command departments' of the Central Committee in planning policy through Gosplan, Gossnab, and Gosbank. A national market was encouraged by individual activity laws, joint stock laws, cooperative laws, and the directive banning the federal monopoly on inter-state trade in 1988. ..."
"... Out of this top-down 'reform,' a minority of Soviet Enterprises began mimicking capitalist infrastructure: managers, directors, and ministers (of companies and banks) granting themselves larger wages or salaries, using the surpluses to buy up and monopolize the stocks and infrastructure of competing companies, using artificial resale of (monopolized) local goods or exclusively selling natural resources to Western clients, tripling the profits for a minority of private households. ..."
"... This nascent middle class used this newfound profit to privatize Soviet media, effectively monopolizing it by the end of the decade, shifting the narratives of Soviet society, bribing politicians to convince the Soviet population that 'market reform' wasn't total privatization of resources, stocks, and companies, and 'Russian autonomy' wasn't succession from the Union (neutral European Polls found clear majorities in the original nine Soviet Republics continued to support democratic socialism, social democracy, and preserving the Union in 1991). Political crisis, like the Moscow coup in August of 1991, was used to manipulate the passive public in accepting fundamental change. ..."
"... The Soviet Union effectively repeated the Yugoslav model: self-governed, democratically managed, or autonomous companies (and later republics) 'fairly competing' in an unregulated or semi-regulated national market. Both models produced middle classes pushing for the acceptance of IMF credits, total privatization of any state companies to repay Western debts, and seceding from a Union of socialist states. ..."
"... Fair competition in a 'socialist' market is a myth. ..."
I remember reading Shahak's translation of Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen
Eighties" and seeing other articles in the Zionist collection arguing nuclear war was the
ideological core of Marxism-Leninism, implying the Soviet Politburo and Soviet society would
never accept reform without it.
Do you think 'ideological readings' of foreign policy are always the best
interpretation?
Gently is the name of the game. The whole "movement" is probably based on a long-term
scenario. The Chinese think along those lines. So OK they won't blow the house down, but they
will move in incremental steps. It might take generations to fully exploit the gap left by
the US loosing influence.
"Save the US"? Maybe, if they can gain something in exchange - but it won't be cash.
Madderhatter67 @59
That was one of them, and another would have been the "rise" of the Nomenklatura (with only
one million card-carrying voters). Which just shows that an "elite", when in power, simply
won't look after anyone but themselves.
I presume that is what you meant by "internal contradictions", - having an unaccountable
elite in a supposedly socialist/egalitarian country. But it was for their egos that they
overspent on the immediately visble - and not on the infrastructure needed to keep the
country going.
(Tut tut, doesn't that remind you of somewhere?)
"Some Marxists, such as Ernest Mandel, have criticised Djilas and the theory of state
capitalism: "The hypothesis that the Soviet bureaucracy is a new ruling class does not
correspond to a serious analysis of the real development and the real contradictions of
Soviet society and economy in the last fifty years."
"The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System is a political theory book by
communist Yugoslav figure and intellectual Milovan Đilas about the concept of the new
class.[1][2] He proposed that the party-state officials formed a class which "uses, enjoys
and disposes of nationalised property".[3]"
It is an apologist work for Khrushchevite and Gorbachevite ideology, but
Kotz and
Weir's "Russia's Path From Gorbachev to Putin" is decent as an explanation.
The rate of Soviet GNP was uneven, but not consistently negative until after the
successions of Russia and the separation of Soviet Republics from the Union.
To sum it up, laws in 1986-87 effectively criminalized the 'command departments' of
the Central Committee in planning policy through Gosplan, Gossnab, and Gosbank. A national
market was encouraged by individual activity laws, joint stock laws, cooperative laws, and
the directive banning the federal monopoly on inter-state trade in 1988.
Out of this top-down 'reform,' a minority of Soviet Enterprises began mimicking
capitalist infrastructure: managers, directors, and ministers (of companies and banks)
granting themselves larger wages or salaries, using the surpluses to buy up and monopolize
the stocks and infrastructure of competing companies, using artificial resale of
(monopolized) local goods or exclusively selling natural resources to Western clients,
tripling the profits for a minority of private households.
This nascent middle class used this newfound profit to privatize Soviet media,
effectively monopolizing it by the end of the decade, shifting the narratives of Soviet
society, bribing politicians to convince the Soviet population that 'market reform' wasn't
total privatization of resources, stocks, and companies, and 'Russian autonomy' wasn't
succession from the Union (neutral European Polls found clear majorities in the original nine
Soviet Republics continued to support democratic socialism, social democracy, and preserving
the Union in 1991). Political crisis, like the Moscow coup in August of 1991, was used to
manipulate the passive public in accepting fundamental change.
While I come from a Yugoslav family, I have far less sympathy for market socialist
ideology. I've never understood the romanticism so many Westerners have always had for the
Old Country. Mind you, I'm not including you in this.
The Soviet Union effectively repeated the Yugoslav model: self-governed,
democratically managed, or autonomous companies (and later republics) 'fairly competing' in
an unregulated or semi-regulated national market. Both models produced middle classes pushing
for the acceptance of IMF credits, total privatization of any state companies to repay
Western debts, and seceding from a Union of socialist states.
Fair competition in a 'socialist' market is a myth.
"... Writing in the Financial Times , former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said that London's AIIB decision and its aftermath "may be remembered as the moment the United States lost its role as the underwriter of the global economic system." ..."
"... Summers was both right and wrong. The U.S. role as the hegemonic power in international politics and economics indeed is being challenged. But this did not start when Britain and the others decided to sign-up with the AIIB. America has been slowly, almost imperceptibly, losing its grip on global leadership for some time, and the Great Recession merely accelerated that process. China's successful launch of the AIIB and its OBOR offspring merely accentuates that process. ..."
"... While President Trump lacks any serious, coherent worldview, there are more than enough Republican members of the foreign policy establishment to ensure that he doesn't break with America's post-1945, bipartisan policy of primacy. And Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again'' certainly puts him in the camp of U.S. global dominance. ..."
"... But Paul Kennedy was correct when he noted in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers that in the history of the modern international system (since around 1500) no state has managed to remain permanently atop the great power pyramid. "American exceptionalism" notwithstanding, the United States will not be an exception. ..."
"... Pax Americana was the product of a unique post-World War II constellation of power. As scholars such as Kennedy and Gilpin have pointed out, when World War II ended the United States accounted for half of the world's manufacturing output and controlled some two-thirds of the world's gold and foreign exchange. Only America could project air and naval power globally. ..."
"... the United States kept the Soviet Union at bay until that artificial regime collapsed of its own weight. ..."
"... today China's AIIB presents a double-barreled challenge to U.S. leadership of the global economy as well as to Pax Americana's institutional (and ideational) foundations. The AIIB aims at enhancing China's role both in managing the international economy and in international development. With AIIB China means to demonstrate its seriousness in demanding a share of decision-making power in the Bretton Woods legacy institutions, the IMF and World Bank, reflecting its current economic and financial clout. The AIIB's impact, however, transcends international economic affairs and reflects the shifting Sino-American balance of power. ..."
"... because of the AIIB, America's "international credibility and influence are being threatened." ..."
"... For their part, the Chinese regarded the U.S. stance as an attempt to counter China's rise and its ambition to become the dominant power in East Asia. As China's former Vice Minister of Finance, Wei Jianguo, put it, "You could think of this as a basketball game in which the U.S. wants to set the duration of the game, size of the court, the height of the basket and everything else to suit itself. In fact, the U.S. just wants to exclude China from the game." ..."
"... China's rise within the post-1945 international order doesn't mean it has any interest in preserving Pax Americana's core. On the contrary, the evidence suggests China wants to reshape the international order to reflect its own interests, norms, and values. As Martin Jacques puts it: ..."
"... The main plan of American soft power is democracy within nation-states; China by way of contrast emphasizes democracy between nation-states!most notably in respect for sovereignty!and democracy in the world system. China's criticism of the Western-dominated international system and its governing institutions strikes a strong chord with the developing world at a time when these institutions are widely recognized to be unrepresentative and seriously flawed. ..."
"... Rules and institutions do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they reflect the distribution of power in the international system. In global politics, the rules are made by those who rule. ..."
"... As E. H. Carr, the renowned English historian of international politics, once observed, a rules-based international order "cannot be understood independently of the political foundation on which it rests and the political interests which it serves." The post-World War II international order is an American order that, while preserving world stability for a long time, primarily privileged U.S. and Western interests. ..."
"... But Beijing, by all the evidence, does not see it that way. And OBOR and the AIIB prove the point. Instead of living within the geopolitical, economic, and institutional confines imposed by Pax Americana, an increasingly powerful China will seek to revise the international order so that it reflects its own political and economic interests. Thus are OBOR and the AIIB straws in the wind. And, as the great Bob Dylan said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing. ..."
"... Paradoxically the acceleration in the decline began with the disintegration of the Soviet Union. Incredible hubris followed, and we are reaping the usual results. ..."
No state stays on top of the great power pyramid forever.
August 8, 2017 In mid-May, leaders of 29 nations, and representatives from some 80 others, descended
on Beijing to discuss China's ambitious "One Belt One Road" (OBOR) development initiative!also known
to some as the "New Silk Road." This plan is the follow-on to China's creation several years ago
of the Asia Infrastructure Development Bank (AIIB), a major new international financial institution
to foster economic development in "emerging market" nations.
OBOR, a signature policy of Chinese president Xi Jinping, calls for investing massive amounts
of money ($1 trillion, according to some reports) to promote trade and economic development by constructing
transportation links that will tie together East Asian manufacturing hubs with Southeast Asia, Central
Asia, Africa, and Southwest Asia. These new transportation routes also will connect China with the
participating nations and Europe. China's aim is twofold: to create new markets for the goods and
services it produces, and to extend its geopolitical influence. Some analysts see OBOR as a Chinese
version of the Marshall Plan, the important post-World War II American initiative that helped rebuild
Western Europe and laid the foundation for European economic unity that ultimately culminated in
the European Union.
With OBOR, China is following the example of Great Britain and the United States (as well as pre-World
War I European great powers such as Germany). In the 19th century, the expansion of the British empire,
including what scholars Ronald Robinson and John Gallagher describe as its "informal empire," was
driven by the perceived need to find outlets for the United Kingdom's "surplus" goods and capital!that
is, goods and capital that could not be profitably absorbed by the domestic economy. When the United
States burst onto the world stage as a great power in the late 19th century, acquiring Puerto Rico,
Hawaii, Guam, and the Philippines, it imitated Britain's pursuit of both informal and formal empire
for the same reason: the belief that America's continuing economic growth depended on exporting American
capital and goods. China today faces the problem of insufficient demand for its products and limited
prospects for profitable domestic investment. Beijing is responding to these problems pretty much
as Britain and the United States did in the latter part of the 19th century: by seeking new markets
and attractive investment opportunities abroad.
As both Britain and the United States demonstrated, economic expansion begets geopolitical expansion.
Economic clout can buy a lot of political influence. But the lines of communication linking the home
country to its overseas markets must be protected. And political stability must be maintained where
the home country is investing. For Britain and the United States, economic expansion resulted in
the inexorable expansion of their military power and diplomatic sway. We can expect OBOR to have
a similar effect on China. It is a powerful incentive for China to expand its military projection
capabilities. Beijing will be compelled to assume an increasingly active role in managing regional
security in places affected by OBOR!especially in Central Asia and Pakistan, which are plagued by
political instability and terrorism.
OBOR is a milestone on China's path to great power status and is one of several indicators of
receding American power!not just geopolitically, but also in matters involving the international
economy and international institutions. When discussing the Sino-American rivalry, attention is focused
on the military balance between the United States and China and to flashpoints between the two countries
that could spark a conflict!the South China Sea, the East China Sea, Taiwan, the Korean Peninsula.
But these more intangible economic and diplomatic developments will be no less important in shaping
relations between Washington and Beijing as in determining the fate of the world order built by the
United States following World War II!that is, Pax Americana, or what is sometimes referred to as
"the liberal rules-based international order."
Since the early 2000s there has been an ongoing conversation among scholars, policymakers, and
members of the broader American foreign policy establishment about whether U.S. power is in decline.
The question actually extends back to the 1980s, with the publication of Yale historian Paul Kennedy's
The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers and other important books on the subject by scholars
David Calleo and Robert Gilpin. The controversy surrounding decline dissipated, however, when the
Soviet Union imploded and Japan's economic bubble burst. In one fell swoop, America's primary military
and economic competitors fell off the geopolitical chessboard.
The decline issue remained dormant through the "the unipolar moment" of the 1990s but was rekindled
with China's rapid great-power emergence in the early 2000s. China's rise is the flip side of American
decline. The central geopolitical question of the early 21st century is whether Pax Americana can
survive China's rise and the resulting shift of world geopolitical and economic power from west to
east. The U.S. foreign policy establishment is allergic to the word "decline." After all, as Jon
Huntsman declared during his brief presidential run in 2012: "Decline is un-American." Perhaps so,
but that doesn't mean that it's not happening.
Though Huntsman has plenty of company on this issue in the foreign policy establishment, we would
do better to heed the advice of the great Hall of Fame pitcher Satchel Paige. "Don't look back,"
he said, "because something may be gaining on you." A glance at the rear-view mirror shows China
rapidly closing the gaps with the United States in all the dimensions of power upon which the Pax
Americana was built: military, economic, and institutional.
In the last decade, China has displaced the United States as the world's leading manufacturing
power. In 2014, according to the World Bank, China passed America as the world's largest economy
(measured by purchasing power parity). In 1980, the United States accounted for about 25 percent
of gross world product. Today it accounts for around 18 percent. Some analysts have come up with
clever arguments to discount the importance of these economic trends. They are unconvincing. But
the reality of U.S. decline is more than just a matter of numbers; it is also evident in Washington's
diminishing ability to manage the international economy and in the growing challenges to many legacy
institutions of Pax Americana.
A strain of thinking called hegemonic stability theory holds that a liberal, open international
economy requires an overarching power to manage and stabilize the system by creating a political
and security order that permits economic openness. The United States filled this role for half a
century, from 1945 until the Great Recession. The world's economic hegemon must provide public goods
that benefit the international system as a whole, including: making the rules for the international
economic order; opening its domestic market to other states' exports; supplying liquidity to the
global economy; and providing a reserve currency. Having declined to grasp the mantle of leadership
during the 1930s, Washington seized it decisively after World War II. Johns Hopkins professor Michael
Mandelbaum has argued that, following the Cold War, the United States essentially acted as a de facto
government for the international system by providing security and managing the global economy.
The Great Recession impaired the United States' ability to provide leadership for the international
economy. After all, an economic hegemon is supposed to solve global economic crises, not cause them.
But America plunged the world into economic crisis when its financial system seized up with the sub-prime
mortgage crisis. A hegemon is supposed to be the lender of last resort in the international economy,
but the United States became the borrower of first resort!the world's largest debtor. When the global
economy falters, the economic hegemon must assume responsibility for kick-starting recovery by purchasing
other nations' goods. From 1945 to the Great Recession, America's willingness to consume foreign
goods constituted the primary firewall against global economic downturns. During the Great Recession,
however, the U.S. economy proved too infirm to lead the global economy back to health.
At the April 2009 G20 meeting in London, President Barack Obama conceded that, in key respects,
the United States' days as economic hegemon were numbered because America is too deeply in debt to
continue as the world's consumer of last resort. Instead, he said, the world would have to look to
China (and other emerging market states plus Germany) to be the motors of global recovery.
Another example of how the U.S. has lost its grip on global economic leadership is its failure
to prevail over the Europeans (read: Germany) in the transatlantic "austerity versus stimulus" debate
that commenced in late 2009. Reflecting their different historical experiences, the United States
and Europe (more specifically, Germany and the European Central Bank, or ECB) adopted divergent fiscal
policies during the Great Recession. Obama administration economic policymakers were guided by the
Keynesian lessons learned from the 1930s Great Depression: to dig out of a deep economic slump, the
federal government should boost demand by pump-priming the economy through deficit spending, and
the Federal Reserve should add further stimulus through low interest rates and easy money. Obama
administration policymakers and leading American economists were haunted by the "1937 analogy"!FDR's
"recession within the Depression''!demonstrating that if stimulus is withdrawn prematurely, a nascent
recovery may be aborted.
On the other hand, Germany!the EU's economic engine!has long been haunted by the "1923 analogy":
the fear that inflation can become uncontrollable, with disastrous economic, social, and political
consequences. From the founding of post-World War II West Germany until the advent of the European
Monetary Union and eventually the Euro, Germany's central Bundesbank maintained a primary mission
of combatting inflation and preserving the Deutschmark's value. For the German government, assurance
that the new ECB would follow the Bundesbank's sound money policy was a sine qua non for Berlin's
decision to give up the Deutschmark in favor of the Euro.
This U.S.-European divide on austerity versus stimulus was apparent as early as the April 2009
London G20 summit, where the United States wanted to rebalance the international economy by inducing
the Europeans (most particularly, Germany, which, with China, was one of the two large surplus economies)
to lift the Continent out of the Great Recession by emulating Washington's use of deficit spending
to galvanize economic revival. Washington wanted Germany to export less and import more. Berlin flatly
refused. German Chancellor Angela Merkel argued that for states!especially ones already deeply in
debt!to accumulate more debt in an effort to spend themselves out of the Great Recession would only
set the stage for an even greater crisis down the road.
Washington's inability to prevail over Berlin in the stimulus vs. austerity debate highlighted
waning U.S. power in the international economy. Jack Lew, then Treasury secretary, implicitly said
as much at the October 2015 IMF-World Bank annual meeting when he stated that the United States could
not be the "sole engine" of global growth.
But America's inability to get Germany to give up austerity was not the only indicator of America's
decreasing ability to shape the international economic agenda. During the Obama administration's
first term, the United States was unable to persuade China to allow the renminbi to appreciate to
Washington's preferred level (which the United States hoped would reduce China's export surplus to
the United States while simultaneously boosting American exports to China).
U.S. economic and fiscal troubles have contributed significantly to the fraying of Pax Americana's
institutional global framework. The Great Recession spurred calls for a major overhaul of the international
institutional order as evidenced by the emergence of the G20, demands for IMF and World Bank reform,
and a push for expanded membership of the UN Security Council. The past decade or so also has seen
the creation of new international organizations and groupings such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization,
the Collective Security Treaty Organization, and BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa).
As American power wanes, a parallel or "shadow" international order is being constructed as an alternative
to Pax Americana. Perhaps the most dramatic example of his is Beijing's Asian Infrastructure Investment
Bank.
As Beijing rolled out its AIIB plans, the Obama administration kicked into high gear diplomatically
in an attempt to squelch it. As the New York Times reported, Washington "lobbied against the
[AIIB] with unexpected determination and engaged in a vigorous campaign to persuade important allies
to shun the project." Washington's attempt to dissuade its allies from joining the AIIB failed. The
dam burst when, in an Ides of March 2015 decision, Britain announced it was going to become a member
of the AIIB ("Et Tu Britain?"). London's decision to join the AIIB set off a stampede as other states
on the fence rushed to sign up for membership. Those joining included U.S. allies such as France,
Germany, Italy, Australia, South Korea, even Israel and Taiwan. Beijing's diplomatic coup in attracting
widespread support for its AIIB initiative from long-standing U.S. allies was viewed as a direct
challenge to America's global geopolitical and economic leadership.
Writing in the Financial Times , former Treasury Secretary Lawrence Summers said that
London's AIIB decision and its aftermath "may be remembered as the moment the United States lost
its role as the underwriter of the global economic system."
Summers was both right and wrong. The U.S. role as the hegemonic power in international politics
and economics indeed is being challenged. But this did not start when Britain and the others decided
to sign-up with the AIIB. America has been slowly, almost imperceptibly, losing its grip on global
leadership for some time, and the Great Recession merely accelerated that process. China's successful
launch of the AIIB and its OBOR offspring merely accentuates that process.
Not surprisingly, U.S. policymakers and the wider foreign policy establishment brush off any possibility
of diminishing U.S. power. Recent books by leading foreign policy analysts (including Josef Joffe,
Robert Lieber, and Joseph S. Nye Jr.) assert that U.S. power is robust, and that the 21st century,
like the 20th, will be an "American century." Meanwhile, during the Obama administration U.S. foreign
policy officials never missed a chance to assert America's continuing role as a global hegemon (though
President Obama's own views on U.S. primacy seemed more nuanced). For example, the Obama administration's
2015 National Security Strategy, a twenty-nine page document, invoked the term "American leadership"
more than 100 times.
While President Trump lacks any serious, coherent worldview, there are more than enough Republican
members of the foreign policy establishment to ensure that he doesn't break with America's post-1945,
bipartisan policy of primacy. And Trump's slogan "Make America Great Again'' certainly puts him in
the camp of U.S. global dominance.
But Paul Kennedy was correct when he noted in The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers
that in the history of the modern international system (since around 1500) no state has managed to
remain permanently atop the great power pyramid. "American exceptionalism" notwithstanding, the United
States will not be an exception.
Pax Americana was the product of a unique post-World War II constellation of power. As scholars
such as Kennedy and Gilpin have pointed out, when World War II ended the United States accounted
for half of the world's manufacturing output and controlled some two-thirds of the world's gold and
foreign exchange. Only America could project air and naval power globally.
And, of course, the United States alone had atomic weapons. America used its commanding economic,
military, and political supremacy to lay the foundations of the post-World War II international order,
reflected in such institutions as the United Nations, NATO, the International Monetary Fund, the
World Bank, and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (which has morphed into the World Trade
Organization). Additionally, the United States kept the Soviet Union at bay until that artificial
regime collapsed of its own weight.
All this represented a remarkable achievement, ensuring relative peace and prosperity for more
than half a century. But today China's AIIB presents a double-barreled challenge to U.S. leadership
of the global economy as well as to Pax Americana's institutional (and ideational) foundations. The
AIIB aims at enhancing China's role both in managing the international economy and in international
development. With AIIB China means to demonstrate its seriousness in demanding a share of decision-making
power in the Bretton Woods legacy institutions, the IMF and World Bank, reflecting its current economic
and financial clout. The AIIB's impact, however, transcends international economic affairs and reflects
the shifting Sino-American balance of power.
Washington said it opposed AIIB because of doubts that it would adhere to the same environmental,
governance, lending, transparency, labor, and human rights standards practiced by the IMF, World
Bank, and Asian Development Bank. But Treasury's Lew was more candid when he said that, because
of the AIIB, America's "international credibility and influence are being threatened."
For their part, the Chinese regarded the U.S. stance as an attempt to counter China's rise
and its ambition to become the dominant power in East Asia. As China's former Vice Minister of Finance,
Wei Jianguo, put it, "You could think of this as a basketball game in which the U.S. wants to set
the duration of the game, size of the court, the height of the basket and everything else to suit
itself. In fact, the U.S. just wants to exclude China from the game."
The Obama administration's ballyhooed Asian pivot was based on the assumption that, although the
ASEAN nations of Asia, along with Australia and South Korea, are being pulled into China's economic
orbit, they will turn to the United States as a geopolitical counterweight. However, Beijing's ability
to get ASEAN, South Korea, and other neighboring states to jump on the AIIB bandwagon suggests this
assumption may be erroneous. The pull of Beijing's economic power may override security concerns
and draw these states into China's geopolitical orbit. The trajectory of ASEAN's trade flows is revealing.
In 1993, the United States accounted for 18 percent of ASEAN's total trade (imports and exports combined),
and China for only 2 percent. By 2013 the United States' share of ASEAN's total trade had shrunk
to 8.2 percent while China's had jumped to 14 percent. The trend lines indicate that in coming years
China's share of regional trade will continue to rise while that of the U.S. will decline.
Thus while OBOR and the AIIB don't get the same attention from U.S. grand strategists as does
China's military buildup, they are equally important in signaling the ongoing power transition between
the United States and China in East Asia. Among American security studies scholars, even those who
once firmly believed that unipolarity would last far into the future now grudgingly concede that
the era of American hegemony may be drawing to a close. They console themselves, however, with the
thought that the United States can cushion itself against future power declines and the loss of hegemony
by taking advantage of what they see as a still-open window to "lock in" Pax Americana's essential
features!its institutions, rules, and norms!so that they outlive unipolarity. As Princeton's G. John
Ikenberry puts it, the United States should act today to put in place an institutional framework
"that will safeguard our interests in future decades when we will not be a unipolar power."
Ikenberry argues that China, having risen within the post-1945 international system, has no incentive
to overturn it. His argument is superficially attractive because it posits that, even if the material
foundations of U.S. dominance wither, its institutional and ideational essence will live on. This
almost certainly is incorrect. China's rise within the post-1945 international order doesn't
mean it has any interest in preserving Pax Americana's core. On the contrary, the evidence suggests
China wants to reshape the international order to reflect its own interests, norms, and values. As
Martin Jacques puts it:
The main plan of American soft power is democracy within nation-states; China by way of
contrast emphasizes democracy between nation-states!most notably in respect for sovereignty!and
democracy in the world system. China's criticism of the Western-dominated international system
and its governing institutions strikes a strong chord with the developing world at a time when
these institutions are widely recognized to be unrepresentative and seriously flawed.
Thus the "lock-in" concept isn't likely to work because China, along with much of the developing
world, does not accept the foundations upon which the post-World War II liberal international order
rests.
For many American scholars and policy makers the notion of a "liberal, rules-based, international
order" has a talismanic quality. They believe that rules and institutions are politically neutral
and thus ipso facto beneficial for all. Many proponents of "lock-in" have constructed a geopolitically
antiseptic world, one uncontaminated by clashing national interests. In this world, great power competition
and conflict are transcended by rules, norms, and international institutions. The problem is that
this misconstrues how the world works. Great power politics is about power. Rules and institutions
do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they reflect the distribution of power in the international system.
In global politics, the rules are made by those who rule.
As E. H. Carr, the renowned English historian of international politics, once observed, a
rules-based international order "cannot be understood independently of the political foundation on
which it rests and the political interests which it serves." The post-World War II international
order is an American order that, while preserving world stability for a long time, primarily privileged
U.S. and Western interests.
Proponents of "lock-in" are saying that China will!indeed, must!agree to be a "responsible stakeholder"
(with Washington defining the meaning of "responsibility") in an international order that it did
not construct and that exists primarily to advance the interests of the United States. In plain English,
what those who believe in "lock-in" expect is that an increasingly powerful China will continue to
accept playing second fiddle to the United States.
But Beijing, by all the evidence, does not see it that way. And OBOR and the AIIB prove the
point. Instead of living within the geopolitical, economic, and institutional confines imposed by
Pax Americana, an increasingly powerful China will seek to revise the international order so that
it reflects its own political and economic interests. Thus are OBOR and the AIIB straws in the wind.
And, as the great Bob Dylan said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is
blowing.
Christopher Layne is University Distinguished Professor of International Affairs, and Robert
M. Gates Chair in National Security, at Texas A&M University.
Thank you for a very interesting article. Still, I think there is a large issue not addressed:
Isn't China on the verge of a now unstoppable demographic catastrophe? How do you see that affecting
China's "rise" long term?
Professor Layne: You left out something very significantly causal re: decline of American power.
It is not mysterious or a deeply historic twist of inevitable fate.
Rather, we have spent TRILLIONS in vain military blood and treasure over the past 17 years,
with NOTHING to show for it � besides a destabilized region raining the most refugees since WW2
onto our allies, the Europeans (destabilizing THEM as well.)
This failure is not even being addressed, let alone changed. Policymakers responsible apparently
have clearance to continue this uselessness indefinitely.
A Chinese sage named Sun Tzu said it best, some 2500 years ago, in The Art of War:
" When you engage in actual fighting, if victory is long in coming, then men's weapons will
grow dull and their ardor will be damped. If you lay siege to a town, you will exhaust your strength.
3. Again, if the campaign is protracted, the resources of the State will not be equal to the
strain.
4. Now, when your weapons are dulled, your ardor damped, your strength exhausted and your treasure
spent, other chieftains will spring up to take advantage of your extremity. Then no man, however
wise, will be able to avert the consequences that must ensue.
5. Thus, though we have heard of stupid haste in war, cleverness has never been seen associated
with long delays.
6. There is no instance of a country having benefited from prolonged warfare. "
No mystery here. America is proving not to be Exceptional enough to survive elite mismanagement.
No. The rest of the world is merely catching up. The wealth that the US enjoyed relative to the
rest of the world in the decades following WWII was unprecedented, and is probably not a repeatable
phenomenon. If we are declining, it is only because we fail to appreciate the multi-latereral
nature of our world, and stick our nose where it doesn't belong.
We're in decline not because of China but because of the decisions we make (or fail to make).
We devote too many resources towards wars and asset appreciation (financial bubbles) and not enough
into investing in ourselves (education and infrastructure). In the short run, the strong military
made us look strong to the world snd ourselves but we never examined whether that was the most
judicious use of our resources for the long run.
This is not anything new. Eisenhower spoke of this 50 some odd years ago.
If we are in decline and there are signs that is the case. It is by our doing. Over expanded strategic
goals and dismantling the very social structure(s) that maintains, sustains and protects longevity.
The abandonment of national identity by our leadership class. They claim in the national interests,
but upon examining their policy agendas, immigration, bailout, lobbying rules, domestic agendas
and management, there's plenty to be concerned about.
" For Britain and the United States, economic expansion resulted in the inexorable expansion of
their military power and diplomatic sway. We can expect OBOR to have a similar effect on China.
It is a powerful incentive for China to expand its military projection capabilities."
The trick here is managing the relational dynamics so that whatever mechanisms one uses in
maintaining that power don't backlash to the point of disruptive violence or using sufficient
force that such backlash doesn't occur.
The British/European model model of colonial rule was unsustainable. It might be wise to examine
Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, maybe Germany but comparing these socialist smaller states would
be a tricky comparison.
The idea that the US would maintain its world standing has been laughable for decades. A nation
cannot excel when you have a population as narcissistic and willfully ignorant like we have now.
The economic downfall is only a symptom of the ever deepening moral failures we find ourselves
fighting over and even clinging to. I am no fan of socialism or communism, but what we have created
here in America is an out of control monster set to destroy all in its path.
"The Obama administration's ballyhooed Asian pivot was based on the assumption that, although
the ASEAN nations of Asia, along with Australia and South Korea, are being pulled into China's
economic orbit, they will turn to the United States as a geopolitical counterweight. However,
Beijing's ability to get ASEAN, South Korea, and other neighboring states to jump on the AIIB
bandwagon suggests this assumption may be erroneous. The pull of Beijing's economic power may
override security concerns and draw these states into China's geopolitical orbit."
It is in this context -- South Korea, Japan, and other south Asian nations being drawn inexorably
into China's geopolitical orbit, thus overturning US post-WW2 hegemony in the region � that current,
much-exaggerated US concerns about North Korean nuclear weapons can best be understood.
The US is using North Korea's nuclear development � undertaken by North Korea as a defensive
measure against regime change by the US � as one of a series of pretexts aimed at preserving its
ever-diminishing post-WW2 hegemony in Asia.
At some point the US will begin to withdraw the 30,000 US troops stationed in South Korea and
the 30,000 US troops stationed in Japan � and will stop conducting military exercises and shows
of force near the Chinese border � and will sit down with China, North Korea, South Korea, and
Japan and begin the long process of negotiating the gradual, peaceful US acceptance of the new
geopolitical reality in east Asia.
The lesson I took from reading Paul Kennedy was, decline is a choice.
China, India and the Middle East could have competed with early modern Europe if centralized
multi-ethnic empires (Manchu, Mughal and Ottoman Empires) hadn't stifled the energy of those civilizations.
The Spanish could have stayed on top if, beginning in 1559, Philip II, III, and IV hadn't stubbornly
clung to ethnically dissimilar European territories such as the Netherlands, and if they hadn't
wasted their nation's strength in the wars of the Counter Reformation.
Beginning with the 1670 Treaty of Dover, the French under Louis XIV and XV fell into the same
trap, wasting their strength in the service of the Counter Reformation and territorial ambitions
in the Netherlands.
The British could have stayed on top if they hadn't alienated the Americans, wasted their strength
on tropical imperialism and balance of power wars, and then surrendered their industrial lead
to Germany and America via the dogmatic embrace of free trade.
Germany might have replaced Britain as the new leading power if they had maintained the peace
with a simply foreign policy based on a strong alliance with Russia, instead of the Byzantine
complexity of Bismark's diplomacy followed by the belligerent buffoonery of Kaiser Wilhelm.
Prior to the Cold War, Americans did everything right. We grew from a tiny settlement in 1607
to a colossas possessing half (!) the world's GDP in 1947. We maintained the homogeneity, without
stifling the energy, of our people. Most of our wars were fought to obtain sparsely populated
temperate zone land for the colonization of our people � not for tropical imperialism, balance
of power, or international ideological crusades. Pragmatism, not ideology, guided our economic
policy. During the Cold War, we began sacrificing the interests of the American nation to the
newfangled ideology of "Americanism". Tentatively under Truman, and definitively beginning with
Kennedy, we undermined the homogeneity of our people with mass immigration from the whole world,
undermined our traditional morality with liberal social engineering, became the policeman of the
world intent on exporting "Americanism", and assumed an attitude of lofty contempt for our own
trade interests.
The Chinese, on the other hand, chose ascent when they purged The Gang of Four and substituted
Chinese ethno-nationalism for feverish Maoism as their guiding principle.
It is obvious that we are now in the decline phase of the life cycle of empires. See the British
general Sir John Bagot Glubb's book "The Course of Empire" and other writings.
Blue chip stocks yield to blue chopsticks! Human civilisation is a forward-moving perpetual motion
machine. It never stops and it never goes back. There is no "end of history". There is no point
at which human civilisation just stops dead in its tracks and never moves again until the sun
implodes in 10 million years and roasts us all. The world has always had its revisionists and
reactionaries who want to take their countries back to some real or imagined golden age. If we're
lucky, such people eventually disappear into Trotsky's famous "dustbin of history". If we're not
lucky, they start a war, lose it and then disappear into said dustbin, destroying their country
in the process and opening up the way for a new dominant power to emerge. Just as Britain dominated
the world by 1850 and the US by 1950, China will dominate the world by 2050. I don't really see
what disadvantage there is in that for Americans and for us in Europe, it looks very positive.
Machiavelli said that as between two tyrants, always choose the most distant. China is Europe's
distant tyrant. OBOR seems to be very much to Europe's advantage, displacing American hegemony
and undermining US hegemonists' attempts to use Putin's Russia as an instrument to keep Europe
under their control.
Being a confirmed Realist and having researched Realism what is going on today between ourselves,
the Chinese Reds, and Russia is quite understandably. Few share our Democracy model, it is too
messy.
Let's not be obtuse. This order was put in place by individuals in the USA because it was to
their economic benefit to do so. That in no way means that this order benefits all Americans or
even a majority. And to the tens of thousands of American soldiers who have died maintaining this
order it was to their great detriment.
I personally have no allegiance to "the liberal rules-based international order". If the Chinese
can do better, let them have at it.
The important question is not whether America is in decline. It is whether the American people's
living standards are in decline.
Empire is not cost effective or beneficial to the general welfare of a country. It only serves
to enrich a few, while creating domestic corruption and inequality.
The post-WW2 American empire, allegedly to contain Communism, really didn't benefit America.
And the costs have been enormous.
It did benefit bankers, defense contractors, scoundrels, and the Wall Street Washington cabal
centered on the CFR.
We wasted the post Cold War era believing there was an "End to History". Anyone with decent
understanding would have considered that trying for a unipolar moment was a huge mistake and a
world with various Great Powers was a more likely outcome.
Unipolar attempts don't work. Acknowledging the US as the greatest Great Power, among many,
is a much better idea than trying to keep the US as the sole Superpower. That isn't decline but
breaking through illusion.
The Soviet Union sustained 20 Million causalities in the Second World War while it moved its factories
east to keep them out of German hands. Contrast this with the US imperial elite who simply handed
over our industrial base to China. The result is that China's economy is growing a rate three
times that of the United States.
What goes up must come down
Spinnin' wheel got to go 'round
Talkin' 'bout your troubles it's a cryin' sin
Ride a painted pony let the spinnin' wheel spin
This thoughtful article is followed by thoughtful comments. One commenter already mentioned demographics.
Due to immigration, America is the only advanced country not facing a population implosion.
Another ace-in-the-whole is geography. We are protected by two oceans with weak friendly neighbors
on our land borders.We are blessed with rich resources. This includes rich agricultural land reachable
by navigable rivers and mineral wealth.
We have rich political and social institutions that hopefully can survive Trump.
While we are doing our best to squander these they give us a cushion.
The U.S. is in an inevitable decline. The only question is the extent of the economic sabotage
and outright wars that the Deep State will instigate to try to forestall the collapse.
Washington will not tolerate a second axis of power arising even if it is strictly economic.
Consider how American Elites used subversion to catalyze the coup in Ukraine. They will stop at
nothing to sustain U.S. hegemony in the larger global sphere.
Should China, Russia and Europe seek to integrate into a huge, contiguous Eurasian economic
marketplace independent of United States hegemonic interference, the Deep State will use all of
its military power to prevent it. (Especially ironic since death and destruction are becoming
America's primary exports.)
The current rumblings of American power projection in the South China Sea and Russian borders
are a set up for future conflicts. The United States regime deluded by arrogance and stupidity
and saturated by the cult of military exceptionalism can't say no to military coercion and war
as its primary foreign policy instrument.
With the Neocon/Neoliberal militarists now running the show, it's only going to get worse
We are in decline because the decisions we made during and after the cold war.
� we tried to buy goodwill ("allies") by using the "most favored nation" clause � outsourcing
manufacturing jobs, starting at the bottom of the sophistication scale (apparel, appliances ).
And all we have left is defense manufacturing jobs. We have no more jobs to give away to buy goodwill.
� while reducing taxes, we kept increasing defense related spending by borrowing money.
With all the senseless wars, we have a huge debt, not exactly something which gives you clout.
� we wasted brainpower on financial gimmicks which have zero contribution to economic strength.
Such gimmicks might mess up the economy � and we did this, too � for the whole world.
China took the market driven part of communist economy which was viciously stamped out by Stalin
� the New Economic Policy (NEP) � and built an economic powerhouse, with money to spend.
The decline of the United States can be directly correlated to the decline in our spiritual fervor
and the absence of the fear of God. Falling morals precipitate the fall of the nation. It's not
a question of if at this point, but when. You can argue whatever other factors you wish, but there
is a direct correlation between strength of a nation and God throughout human civilization.
Lots to chew on as they say, but a couple key points from the article. A US President represents
how the world view's we Americans. From all the so called turmoil, with both political parties
sent packing, Trump may in fact represent real America. The fantasy the left markets, of a social
democratic welfare state is a myth. Next, we have grown up on a diet of our President elect, being
Commander in Chief, of the worlds most powerful military. So I ask, did Bill Clinton or Barack
Obama seem to Americans, like a commander in chief. Bush wasn't capable of responding to 9-11,
he tried and failed. Last Commander in Chief we had in our image was Ronald Reagan. Any wonder
our enemies are making hay while the sunshines. So now we have two very very admirable foes. China
and Russia neither with western values. How we now fit is up in the air. Getting Trump impeached
or forced to resign replaced with whoever won't change millions of Americans.
I would take exception to some of these comments about inevitable decline. The word decline suggests
to some end. That is very different than retraction or change.
When one examines China, Russia, Europe, these nations have been in play as states for 1500
years. And despite periods of retraction have maintained some semblance of their origins, more
than some. Their cores remain intact as to culture and practice despite differing polities What
is key for the US is her youth. We are unable to match the strategic long term strategies as the
states mentions because we have not been around long enough to seal our core existence as a nation.
Mistaking youthful exuberance for wisdom of age is where we are. There is no mistaking that
the US can remain a major player in world events and we should. But that process need not be at
the expense of who we are are becoming or in lieu of it.
I will have to dig out my Zsun Tsu. It is easy to apply those admonitions out of their intended
context. Because so many different environmental war scenarios are addressed. For example, Asia
plays the long game. They are not thinking merely about this century, this decade, this year,
month . . . but the next century. Hence the idea of long war. Consider how long they have been
on the Continent of Africa.
They are in a sense just waiting everyone else out. Iraq, blood in the water. Afghanistan,
blood in the water. They are not the least troubled that we are embroiled in the ME.
The size of our debt is troubling and the size of how much of that debt is owned by other states
is disturbing. China, some ten years ago, indicated that they are seeking a way around the power
of the dollar.
I am fully confident that we can survive the rise of any nation on earth. I believe we are
special unique, and endowed with an energy, ingenuity, vibrancy and psyche today's world. But
we are so inundated with a kind of can't do -- must accept attitude in social polity that undermines
sense of self. and that is where I think the force of a Pres Trump is helpful, reinvigorating.
Conserving a sense of self, identity is mandatory for survival.
And while I have opposed out latest military interventions as unnecessary, if we decide to
make war -- we had better do it to the full and be done with. This is more in line with what I
think Tzun Tzu -- destabilize the opponents psychology.
Here the importation of Doaist, Hindu, and other existentialist philosophies are upending western
thought. The humanities are tearing asunder our social and psychological meaning of self. Whether
it is soulmates, no anchored truth or reality or the notion of that human sexuality is malleable
and no right no wrong save as to individual minding and social circumstance . . . the system of
concreteness is being chiseled to nothingness.
"Such gimmicks might mess up the economy � and we did this, too � for the whole world."
Actually we did something else, we embraced the world's standards � Basel I and Basel II. Which
are major contributors to our economic system. When Pres Nixon pressed to go off the gold standard
. . . huge error.
Last week one of the toughest hurdles was to avoid getting into that ambulance I knew the minute
I did, I would be entering a system bent on bending me to its will.
Before we go about making the world -- we need a clear and clean sense of self and resist change,
regardless of the pressure by friend or foe.
" The United States filled this role for half a century, from 1945 until the Great Recession.
The world's economic hegemon must provide public goods that benefit the international system as
a whole, including: making the rules for the international economic order; opening its domestic
market to other states' exports; supplying liquidity to the global economy; and providing a reserve
currency."
Uhh you are playing fast and loose here with one overarching reality -- there really was no
one else left who could do so. And that lasted a good while. As those regions recovered, we continued
to provide without ever adjusting to the their own ability to provide. Prime example, our presence
in Europe, I would be interested in the ROI of defending the Europeans even as they make war on
others or encourage conflicts they themselves ave no intention of supporting, but are more than
happy that the US do so.
Paradoxically the acceleration in the decline began with the disintegration of the Soviet
Union. Incredible hubris followed, and we are reaping the usual results.
I think just the opposite. OBOR, AIIB and the Shanghai Group show China playing precisely by the
rules of the international, rules-based liberal order set up by the Western powers generally over
the last few centuries and particularly by the USA after WWII. China actually follows the international
rules. It hasn't invaded anyone since 1979. How many wars not authorized by the UNSC, and generally
either dubious or flat out in violation of international law, has the US engaged in since that
date? China does not interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. As the article states,
China follows the rules of Westphalian sovereignty. But it also follows the rules of international
law. China does not abuse its veto power in the UNSC, the way the Western powers, particularly
the USA, does. China is not looking to impose its way of life on other countries. And its international
initiatives, including the international organizations it has created and sponsored, are all about
trade, tourism, and co operation and development, as opposed to the USA's, which are all about
domination, ever expanding "defensive" military alliances, military bases everywhere, demeaning
and degrading, not to mention hypocritical, "human rights report cards," endless "sanctions" and
"embargoes" on everyone who does not do its bidding, covering up for the sins of its aggressive,
horrible client states, particularly Israel and the KSA, handing out cookies to coupsters in the
process of overthrowing legitimate, and even democratically elected, governments, and generally
sticking its nose into the elections of other countries, and now, with Trump, threatening to upset
the apple cart when it comes to international trade and tourism and cultural exchange.
The USA is the rogue state, in regard to the very international order that it played a huge
role in establishing. The USA can't even seem to go through an Olympic Games without making a
fuss about something or another.
"Rules and institutions do not exist in a vacuum. Rather, they reflect the distribution of
power in the international system. In global politics, the rules are made by those who rule international
politics 'cannot be understood independently of the political foundation on which it rests and
the political interests which it serves.' The post-World War II international order is an American
order that, while preserving world stability for a long time, primarily privileged U.S. and Western
interests. Proponents of 'lock-in' are saying that China will!indeed, must!agree to be a 'responsible
stakeholder' (with Washington defining the meaning of 'responsibility') in an international order
that it did not construct and that exists primarily to advance the interests of the United States.
In plain English, what those who believe in 'lock-in' expect is that an increasingly powerful
China will continue to accept playing second fiddle to the United States. But Beijing, by all
the evidence, does not see it that way. And OBOR and the AIIB prove the point. Instead of living
within the geopolitical, economic, and institutional confines imposed by Pax Americana, an increasingly
powerful China will seek to revise the international order so that it reflects its own political
and economic interests. Thus are OBOR and the AIIB straws in the wind. And, as the great Bob Dylan
said, you don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind is blowing."
Of course the distribution of power matters. But China is using its power within the liberal,
rules-based framework established by the West. It actually already behaves in a "responsible"
manner. It didn't invade Hong Kong or Macao, rather it made deals with the declining colonial
powers which controlled them. It doesn't invade Taiwan. Rather it uses diplomacy to slowly advance
its cause with respect to "One China." It uses its economic clout to develop trading partners,
not to try to bully them into political submission, a la the USA. It is patient with regard to
North Korea. It is patient with regard to US sabre rattling and blustering right at its borders.
It is patient and rule-abiding in just about everything. Its organization are bypassing the USA.
Not confronting it. If China eventually eclipses the USA, it will be because China has beaten
it at its own game.
Our moral decline leads to the other decline mentioned in the article. There's a statement
that says :"America is great because she is good But, she will cease to be great because she ceased
to be good" We've been in decline since the '60's and are coming to our "bottom" ( and end ) ever
more quickly
One thing not mentioned in the article is how we lost our technological lead. This in large part
due to our H1B program, which is a conveyor belt to transfer tech and organizational knowhow abroad.
Most R&D operations seem to be staffed largely by guest workers from China and India. Yes, there
is a saving on salaries, leading to profits. But in addition to the knowledge transfer, there
is the discouragement to US natives from entering tech fields.
Margnistsky was an accountant. He never has been a laywer.
Notable quotes:
"... "Foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups" means absolutely different things than it is stated. We must read "foreign" as "American", "non-governmental" as "uncontroled by the Russian government, but sponsored by the US government", and "pro-democracy" as "pro-US". ..."
"... There is nothing democratic in these groups. Everything they say is a lie. They do not want at all democracy for Russians. Because if there were democracy in Russia, then Browder and other foreign carpetbaggers were shot dead by popular vote. Or at least they could never come to Russia and rob it as they have been doing. And they all know it. They do not want freedom and human right for Russians. By "freedom" these groups understand the freedom for THEM and THEIR friends, and by "human right" they understand the rights for THEM and THEIR friends. ..."
"... I've been reading the Western press for many years now, and when they write about Russia or the above-mentioned holy things, I constantly read only less than a dozen of names. Namely: Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky and a couple of others. Everything that concerns the human rights violations in Russia is just about that privileged dozen of people. Nothing else bad happens in Russia with anybody else. Believe me if all the problems with human rights in Russia were only with that dozen of people I would be really happy. ..."
"... The yankee imperium has evolved into the inverted totalitarianism structure. The mainstream press and those inside the beltway are no more free agents than politburo members were during the Soviet era. Why would Nekrasov, prior to this film a known enemy of the Russian state, change his views unless he was an honourable man convinced by the evidence? The treatment of this film reveals the true nature of the contemporary yankee power structure. ..."
"... The latest neocon line is to use Brexit as an excuse to (a) blame Putin even more (b) expand NATO. Today's Washington Post had an editorial demanding that NATO be strengthened to ward off the enhanced Russian threat now that Britain will be leaving the EU. ..."
"... Here is the perfect moment to remember that it was antisemitism to question the western narrative on Iran nuclear program. David Brooks will conform if his mind is still sharp enough that he once suggested attacking George Bush war of 2003 was a also antisemitic . ..."
"... Dr. Giraldi, do you know there is a Jewish organization in UK, which gives "Sergei Magnitsky Human Rights Awards"? Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim McGovern, a Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' � named after Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008). ..."
"... A famous quote springs to mind: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American people believe is false." CIA director William Casey (CIA director, 1981-1987) ..."
"... According to Israel Shamir, both Browder himself and the Jewish community consider him to be Jewish. http://www.unz.com/ishamir/the-good-fortune-of-mr-browder/ ..."
"... Putin said 'enough!' And has stopped them in Syria (for now) when everyone else was wringing their hands, Putin showed them all how a man with integrity must act, when faced with a thug and a bully. You stand up to them. Or you cower, and place your fate in their hands, as Gadhafi had done. ..."
"... And from that you all have a problem. You get information about Russia either from the Washington-centric quasi-independent ("independent" in the American political doublespeak always means independent from everyone but Washington) outlets, like NYT, WP, Fox, CNN, you name it, and their view of Russia for the past 90 years is quite predictable if not annoying, and I understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite way, so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it as something is white. ..."
"... On the other hand you have the Kremlin propaganda state machine like RT who obviously do the same thing as the Washington propaganda machine, but in the opposite direction; or Russophilic individuals (usually emigres with nostalgia), lone wolf voices like the Saker or Karlin, but whose voice anyway is irrelevant and illusional because, as I've said, they are outsiders and know little about the actual Russian life, but they rather might be characterized as positive interpreters of open sources (and neither the sources nor their interpretations ought to be true). ..."
"... Also we have local "opposition" outlets either in Russian like the radio station "Ekho Moskvy", the TV station "Dozhd", "Novaya Gazeta" and so on, or in English like "The Moscow Times", but I do not even take them seriously, I consider them as virtually subsidiaries of the Western MSM (though there is one irony that furiously anti-government "Ekho Moskvy" is owned by Gazprom). ..."
"... What I wanted to say, that even if many who are not hopelessly brainwashed understand that the demonizing of Russia is a lie, it does not make the opposite view automatically right, and your over-positive opinion is generally illusional. I tried to bring you around, but seemed to fail, though to change anybody's opinion was not my goal, I was just trying to say my opinion, be it right or wrong. ..."
"... It works in the opposite direction as well. When people have not enough means, they have no much time left to think about and to follow good moral, they are simply surviving as they can, often doing very ugly things. In most cases a society in strong need ends up in a chaos as we can see it in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America. ..."
"... And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave her hope, (and an ascendant middle class and pride in Russia's heritage). For the Fiend, this was an abomination, and ironically enough; Putin was now a new Hitler � especially when he jailed on of their own (and for hard labor -- It was another Holocaust!). But as long as he played ball with the West by letting most of the Jewish oligarchs keep their ill-gotten billions, and went along with atrocities like the savage rape of Iraq, the oligarchs were willing to ignore what Putin had done to their designs and fun up to a degree. ..."
"... I would say that Putin certainly does care about Iran. It doesn't take a genius to know which nations have been declared evil and targeted by the US, they are frequently named by traitorous whores like Hillary, Obuma, Biden etc, along with the treacherous neo-cons who bear responsibility for fomenting wars in the ME. ..."
"... Putin is smart enough to know that if any nation sits back and waits its turn to be attacked it will surely be destroyed. He went out on a limb to arrest the destruction of Syria and it has paid off. He appears to have played his cards remarkably well to date. I can't imagine that the stratospheric level of approval and support that he receives in Russia is fictional. ..."
"... I would believe RT News before I would the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, DW, Fox and all the other discredited western "news" outlets. ..."
"... To like/dislike Putin is not a political stance but rather a personal opinion. But it does not explain nor imply any other view. To be precise, several persons can dislike Putin, but one may be a pro-Western ultra-liberal, another a Stalinist, other a National-Bolshevik, other a Christian Monarchist, other a racist Nazi, other a pro-Ukrainian Nazi, and so on. It is difficult to list them all. And they all may have totally different views on many subjects, but just one thing in common, as you said, a dislike to Putin. ..."
"... Russia is on the fall . The crisis of the past two years has just nullified any achievements of the previous 2004-2014 decade. Russia has practically returned to its starting position. And nothing says about its rise, everything says the contrary . Russians have entered a difficult time. They will be remembering 2000-2014 with bitter nostalgia. ..."
"... Actually, for the past 25 years Russia is becoming "a multi-culture, failing state, with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them" . I will add that that elite is in the West in their minds, and they have to be physically located in Russia just for the sake of "earning" money. ..."
The documentary began with the full participation of American born UK citizen William Browder,
who virtually served as narrator for the first section that portrayed the widely accepted story
on Magnitsky. Browder portrays himself as a human rights campaigner dedicated to promoting the
legacy of Sergei Magnitsky, but he is inevitably much more complicated than that. The grandson
of Earl Browder the former General Secretary of the American Communist Party,
William Browder studied
economics at the University of Chicago, and obtained an MBA from Stanford.
From the beginning, Browder concentrated on Eastern Europe, which was beginning to open up
to the west. In 1989 he took a position at highly respected Boston Consulting Group dealing with
reviving failing Polish socialist enterprises. He then worked as an Eastern Europe analyst for
Robert Maxwell, the unsavory British press magnate and Mossad spy, before joining the Russia team
at Wall Street's Salomon Brothers in 1992.
He left Salomons in 1996 and partnered with the controversial Edmond Safra, the Lebanese-Brazilian-Jewish
banker who died in a mysterious fire in 1999, to set up Hermitage Capital Management Fund. Hermitage
is registered in tax havens Guernsey and the Cayman Islands. It is a hedge fund that was focused
on "investing" in Russia, taking advantage initially of the
loans-for-shares
scheme under Boris Yeltsin, and then continuing to profit greatly during the early years of Vladimir
Putin's ascendancy. By 2005 Hermitage was the largest foreign investor in Russia.
Browder had renounced his U.S. citizenship in 1997 and became a British citizen apparently
to avoid American taxes, which are levied on worldwide income. In
his bookRed Notice: A True Story of High Finance, Murder and One Man's Fight for Justice
he depicts himself as an honest and honorable Western businessman attempting to function in a
corrupt Russian business world. That may or may not be true, but the loans-for-shares scheme that
made him his initial fortune has been correctly characterized as the epitome of corruption, an
arrangement whereby foreign investors worked with local oligarchs to strip the former Soviet economy
of its assets paying pennies on each dollar of value. Along the way, Browder
was reportedly involved in making false representations on official documents and bribery.
As a consequence of what came to be known as the Magnitsky scandal, Browder was eventually
charged by the Russian authorities for fraud and tax evasion. He was banned from re-entering Russia
in 2005, even before Magnitsky died, and began to withdraw his assets from the country. Three
companies controlled by Hermitage were eventually seized by the authorities, though it is not
clear if any assets remained in Russia. Browder himself was convicted of tax evasion in absentia
in 2013 and sentenced to nine years in prison.
Browder has assiduously, and mostly successfully,
made his case that he and Magnitsky have been the victims of Russian corruption both during
and since that time, though there have been
skeptics regarding many details of his personal narrative. He has been able to sell his tale
to leading American politicians like Senators John McCain, Ben Cardin and ex-Senator Joe Lieberman,
always receptive when criticizing Russia, as well as to a number of European parliamentarians
and media outlets. But there is, inevitably, another side to the story, something quite different,
which Andrei Nekrasov presents to the viewer.
Nekrasov has discovered what he believes to be holes in the narrative that has been carefully
constructed and nurtured by Browder. He provides documents and also an interview with Magnitsky's
mother maintaining that there is no clear evidence that he was beaten or tortured and that he
died instead due to the failure to provide him with medicine while in prison or treatment shortly
after he had a heart attack. A
subsequent investigation
ordered by then Russian President Dimitri Medvedev in 2011 confirmed that Magnitsky had not received
medical treatment, contributing to this death, but could not confirm that he had been beaten even
though there was suspicion that that might have been the case.
Nekrasov also claims that much of the case against the Russian authorities is derived from
English language translations of relevant documents provided by Browder himself. The actual documents
sometimes say something quite different. Magnitsky is referred to as an accountant, not a lawyer,
which would make sense as a document of his deposition is apparently part of a criminal investigation
of possible tax fraud, meaning that he was no whistleblower and was instead a suspected criminal.
Other discrepancies cited by Nekrasov include documents demonstrating that Magnitsky did not
file any complaint about police and other government officials who were subsequently cited by
Browder as participants in the plot, that the documents allegedly stolen from Magnitsky to enable
the plotters to transfer possession of three Hermitage controlled companies were irrelevant to
how the companies eventually were transferred and that someone else employed by Hermitage other
than Magnitsky actually initiated investigation of the fraud.
In conclusion, Nekrasov believes there was indeed a huge fraud related to Russian taxes but
that it was not carried out by corrupt officials. Instead, it was deliberately ordered and engineered
by Browder with Magnitsky, the accountant, personally developing and implementing the scheme used
to carry out the deception.
To be sure, Browder and his international legal team have presented documents in the case that
contradict much of what Nekrasov has presented in his film. But in my experience as an intelligence
officer I have learned that documents are easily forged, altered, or destroyed so considerable
care must be exercised in discovering the provenance and authenticity of the evidence being provided.
It is not clear that that has been the case. It might be that Browder and Magnitsky have been
the victims of a corrupt and venal state, but it just might be the other way around. In my experience
perceived wisdom on any given subject usually turns out to be incorrect.
Given the adversarial positions staked out, either Browder or Nekrasov is essentially right,
though one should not rule out a combination of greater or lesser malfeasance coming from both
sides. But certainly Browder should be confronted more intensively on the nature of his business
activities while in Russia and not given a free pass because he is saying things about Russia
and Putin that fit neatly into a Washington establishment profile. As soon as folks named McCain,
Cardin and Lieberman jump on a cause it should be time to step back a bit and reflect on what
the consequences of proposed action might be.
One should ask why anyone who has a great deal to gain by having a certain narrative accepted
should be completely and unquestionably trusted, the venerable Cui bono? standard. And
then there is a certain evasiveness on the part of Browder. The film shows him huffing and puffing
to explain himself at times and he has
avoided being served with subpoenas on allegations connected to the Magnitsky fraud that are
making their way through American courts. In one case he can be seen on YouTube
running away from a
server, somewhat unusual behavior if he has nothing to hide.
A number of Congressmen and staffers were invited to the showing of the Nekrasov
Magnitsky was a sleazy accountant, not a lawyer and among his activities one was about getting
tax breaks for Browder, using fictitious hiring of disabled people to get a tax break.
Browder was one of the very bold and very suspicious "gold-diggers" in xUSSR space, who
tried to participate in the "economic rape of Russia".
During this time of gangster capitalism in Russia under drunk Yeltsin such a person, especially
a foreign one, could easily get a six grams of led if he stepped on some oligarchs foot, but
this did not stopped him. He was really reckless. I wonder why. Who protected him in Russia?
Here is pretty interesting and educational reading
"Ties with Russia run deep in his family; his grandfather was General Secretary of the US
Communist Party and, according to documents released in 1995, worked for the NKVD, running
a spy ring. Bill himself specialized in Eastern European markets, and when he felt the time
was right, he founded Hermitage Capital Management in 1996, along with the main investor, Edmond
Safra."
His real connection and why he renounced US citizenship and is hiding in UK suggest that
some influential British structures were behind his activities.
In a way Browder was very interested in Magnitsky death as dead Magnitsky was much more
useful for him that alive. Magnitsky knew way too much about Brower activities in Russia and
already started talking.
It's a pity that doublespeak and doublethink rule the world. Every time you read something
you now must decipher.
"Foreign non-governmental pro-democracy groups" means absolutely different things than
it is stated. We must read "foreign" as "American", "non-governmental" as "uncontroled by the
Russian government, but sponsored by the US government", and "pro-democracy" as "pro-US".
There is nothing democratic in these groups. Everything they say is a lie. They do not
want at all democracy for Russians. Because if there were democracy in Russia, then Browder
and other foreign carpetbaggers were shot dead by popular vote. Or at least they could never
come to Russia and rob it as they have been doing. And they all know it. They do not want freedom
and human right for Russians. By "freedom" these groups understand the freedom for THEM and
THEIR friends, and by "human right" they understand the rights for THEM and THEIR friends.
But the real problem is the Russian government do not want good for Russians as well. This
entire conflict is between the native colonial administration and the foreign carpetbaggers.
And the main point is who'll get the cash, either Browder and his friends or some unknown Russian
oligarchs and corrupt officials. But both the results are bad for Russians.
the Short Version: Putin's Russia is a large White pebble in the open-borders Judeo-globalist
shoe. The Zionists/neo-conz/cucks will do anything � even upbrink to a nuclear WW III � to
destroy Nationalist Russia
And something else about democracy, freedom, human rights and so on hypocritical demagogy
of the West.
I've been reading the Western press for many years now, and when they write about Russia
or the above-mentioned holy things, I constantly read only less than a dozen of names. Namely:
Politkovskaya, Litvinenko, Magnitsky, Khodorkovsky and a couple of others. Everything that
concerns the human rights violations in Russia is just about that privileged dozen of people.
Nothing else bad happens in Russia with anybody else. Believe me if all the problems with human
rights in Russia were only with that dozen of people I would be really happy.
But the fact is that everyday for the last 25 years thousands of common Russians are faced
with the violations of their rights. But nobody in the West worry about them, nobody mention
them, they simply do not exist for the West. The only people that exist are those who are directly
or indirectly connected with the Western establishment. That is the Western establishment and
their tame press are concerned only about their personal interests.
And when another Western (or Russian) journalist or human rights "activist", while writing
another article about Russia, mention again and again just only that half a dozen of the names,
I just cannot help but despise those hypocrites.
The yankee imperium has evolved into the inverted totalitarianism structure. The mainstream
press and those inside the beltway are no more free agents than politburo members were during
the Soviet era. Why would Nekrasov, prior to this film a known enemy of the Russian state,
change his views unless he was an honourable man convinced by the evidence? The treatment of
this film reveals the true nature of the contemporary yankee power structure.
Sergei Magnitsky like the US and EU was a Zionist clown whose strings were held by the Organized
Jewry.
In November 2015, in an interview with UK's No.1 Israeli propaganda media outlet, 'Jewish
Chronicle', William Browder, the American-born Jewish tycoon who describes himself as Putin's
"number one enemy" in his book: Red Notice, claimed that though Putin had met Netanyahu, Avigdor
Lieberman, and local Jewish leaders; supports Israel and donated $1 million to Moscow's Holocaust
Museum � his heart is filled with hatred towards Jews. Why? Because he tortured and killed
Magnitsky and supports Iran's ally Assad.
Madeleine Albright, who found her Jewish family roots while holding post of US secretary
of state, in a recent interview she gave to Austrian newspaper DiePress.com called Russian
president Vladimir Putin "a smart but a truly evil man." She claimed that Putin is trying his
best to destroy European Union and NATO, two of Israel's allies.
"He is smart but truly an evil man. An officer of KGB, who wants to exercise power and believes
that every body has come together to conspire against Russia. This is not true. Putin is playing
bad cards well, for the time being at least. I believe his goal is to undermine and split EU.
He want NATO to disappear from his sphere of influence," She said.
Thanks. The latest neocon line is to use Brexit as an excuse to (a) blame Putin even
more (b) expand NATO. Today's Washington Post had an editorial demanding that NATO be strengthened
to ward off the enhanced Russian threat now that Britain will be leaving the EU.
You omit taking notice of the author's shrewd observation that there might still be available
some large amount of money that even Nekrasov might find irresistable as way to quickly achieved
financial independence. Even if he is basically an honest man he might be able to rationalise
selling out if he knows that Browder is, anyway, a crook.
But the real problem is the Russian government do not want good for Russians as well.
in your opinion, is the Putin government just as corrupt as the Zio-West? From here in the
(dying and looted) West, it looks like Russia's middle class is ascendant, while ours is being
systematically murdered off
Personally, for me, what it feels like is that the worst elements in the population that
were in Russia (and Eastern Europe) during the 20th century have now emigrated over to the
West. And that just as Russia and Eastern Europe suffered unimaginable horrors during the last
century, under cruel and sadistic Bolsheviks (and the Cheka and NKVD), they are now over here,
fomenting genocide and looting the place blind.
It's as if when Putin came to power, the Fiend slithered over the Berlin wall into the West,
where it now molders in the assorted banking houses and think tanks plotting its next iniquitous
atrocity, whether financial or military or social/cultural.
That's how it seems to me anyways.
(thank you PG for your superlative and informative articles. They're very much appreciated)
I guess he doesn't have to be anti Jewish ,but being a proponent of prosperity at home and
peace abroad does create a monster out of a decent man in today's garbage land which defines
the western minds . It sure doesn't help the warmongering war readiness war friendly Zio
In some way Zio are doing what they did to other peace makers through the ages. Being against
war and being for peace automatically ensures extended definition of antisemitism will be attached
Here is the perfect moment to remember that it was antisemitism to question the western
narrative on Iran nuclear program. David Brooks will conform if his mind is still sharp enough
that he once suggested attacking George Bush war of 2003 was a also antisemitic .
Dr. Giraldi, do you know there is a Jewish organization in UK, which gives "Sergei Magnitsky
Human Rights Awards"? Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim
McGovern, a Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' � named
after Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008).
During his acceptance speech Jim McGovern said that he was a staunch supporter of Israel
and supported the US-Iran nuclear agreement because it would be good for Israel in long-term.
During his stay in London, Jim McGovern was interviewed by Israeli mouthpiece, Jewish Chronicle
� published on November 27.
"I understand the security concerns, but I also believe that ultimately, the way forward
in Israel is for there to be real negotiations with the Palestinians -- a two-state solution.
People need to learn to live with each other -- that's the solution all over the world," McGovern
said.
When asked does that include Hamas? McGovern replied: "I don't need to negotiate with my
friends. I need to negotiate with the people I consider my adversaries and my enemies."
He also criticized Israel's human rights abuses and warned such actions are isolating Israel
from the international community. "I think Israel does not have a perfect human rights record.
I think the settlement policies are very troublesome," he said.
@Anonymous
As Anonymous says,"
Q: Who is guilty of lying, Nekrasov or Browder?
A: Which one is the Jew?"
Agreed. Frequently you will find that to find the truth just see what the Jew is saying
and the opposite will be the truth or what they say will be so convoluted as to twist the truth
into a blaspheme of some sort.
Last year, it awarded the honor on Israel-First Rep. Jim McGovern. Jim McGovern, a
Democrat who co-chairs the influential 'Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission' � named after
Jewish Rep. Tom Lantos (d. 2008).
God help us, that Jew jerk Lantos is still screwing over America. Wonder how many Palestinians
he is responsible for murdering?
@Anonymous
Are you just idly polluting UR with your prejudices or do you have some faintly relevant information?
The Browders who are descended from (non-Jewish) Communist Earl Browder seem to have good
mathematical brains which may be inherited from Earl Browder's Russian Jewish wife. But it
appears the Jewishness ended with her. The younger Bill Browder (who has a mathematician uncle
also called Bill) is the son of mathematician Felix who doesn't appear to have married a Jew.
Over to you to research Nekrasov. Will your brain suffer spasms or paraysis if you find that
neither of them are Jews.
A famous quote springs to mind: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete when
everything the American people believe is false." CIA director William Casey (CIA director,
1981-1987)
If this is an accurate quote, and I assume that it is, .what is the point of it? I mean
what goals should the CIA have ? Shouldn't OUR CIA be doing everything in its power, (like
every other government agency which we employ) to shore up the health ,wealth and security
of our nation.? Every action it takes, clandestine or otherwise, should be designed to ensure
the safety, freedom , and prosperity of our nation and its citizens .
Period. End of story. If they are not doing that .Fire the bums.
I still don't get what the cute girl in the pic is all about? She doesn't look Jewish
or anything.
That cute girl is Elena Servettaz who edited the book, the cover of which is behind her.
Here's a lot more photos of her for your viewing pleasure. Including one with her and Crazy
John McCain, which probably tells you all you need to know.
@Greasy
William Without going into a lot of unnecessary detail, Elena Servettaz is a Russian Jew
who serves basically the same role in the international journalistic world as Pamela Gellar
serves in the right-wing talk-show host/U-tube world based in Jew York City.
@Wizard
of Oz Don't be ridiculous, Bill Browder is Jewish and has always strongly identified as
such. He has a mezuzah on his office door and only hires Jewish employees. I knew him personally
back in the 90s and 00s.
@Boris
N I agree with you wholeheartedly, Boris, with the comments you made on democracy in Russia,
as well as the role the foreign (US) carpetbaggers had played in Russian society.
However, you failed to mention Russian President Vladimir Putin, who had succeeded the drunken,
incompetent Boris Yeltsin, who had been installed by the Jewish Oligarchs, who were � during
his Presidency � looting the Russian Treasury and bleeding the nation dry. It was Putin who
salvaged the Russian economy by imprisoning and/or exiling these Oligarchs and seizing all
of their assets. He also restored Orthodox Christianity in Russia after 70 years of it being
underground under Bolshevik Communism. The magnificent Cathedral of Christ the Redeemer, which
had been built in the 19th Century, then demolished by Lazar Kaganovich under Josef Stalin's
orders, was restored (rebuilt) after Yeltsin became President in the 1990′s.
Democracy also came to Russia under Putin, along with the revival of Orthodox Christianity.
As a result, the Russian people are experiencing more freedom than people are in Western countries,
including the US. In a way, these two nations � Russia and the US � have switched ideologies.
Even as I type this reply, Boris, Christianity in the US has just come under attack by the
Federal Courts which, btw, is a gross violation of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution,
which guarantees, along with freedoms of speech, press and peaceable assemply, freedom of religion.
@Wizard
of Oz "as amongst the Jews what anti-Semites (and some Jews) would regard as "typically
Jewish"."
Don't be ridiculous. Jewish people define themselves as an ethnic group. The
fact that the ethnic group has considerably admixed is not the fault of those who merely observe
that fact.
@Eileen
Kuch A friend who ran a very big charity funded by Khodorkovsky told me that he is not
Jewish but Russian Orthodox and, indeed, his mother Marins seems to be Orthodox Christian,
so why would the Jerusalem Post online refer to him as Jewish? Did he convert?
I guess its just that, on balance, any group likes to claim the rich unless they are too
disreputable.
A related question is whether people with Jewish fathers, like K, got into the habit of
associating with others who were at least part Jewish because of the viciousness or at least
weight of anti-Semitism in the Soviet Union. After all one can get an idea of what it was like
from the mad snti-Semitism in UR comments where even Rupert Murdoch can be called Jewish out
of spite and envy even though he doesn't have a drop of known Jewish ancestry � pure Anglo-Celt
it seems in case some twisted mind picks on that "known".
in your opinion, is the Putin government just as corrupt as the Zio-West?
Yes, absolutely. It is not just my mere assumption, and it is not a conspiracy either, but
clear open facts that anybody can see if one wants to see. It is not "as corrupt as", it IS
controled by the West. We must not be deceived by the trickery red herring play of the official
Kremlin (I do not like the cliche "Kremlin propaganda", but this is exactly it; unfortunately
the Western MSM use this term for absolutely different things; the Western MSM play in the
same duo, by the way).
Who is Putin and where has he come from in the first place? Apart from that he is a former
KGB officer, and, as they say, "there aren't former KGB officers" (and this is important as
a great deal of Russian oligarchs came from that organization), he has not come from anywhere
and suddenly but fairly won the presidential campaign in 2000. During the 1990s he was moving
around in the Russian oligarchic and Kremlin circles, in fact he once was the right hand of
the first mayor of St.-Petersburg Sobchak, which in turn was a friend of Yeltsin. You think
Putin is different, but he is the same, he is from the same circles, you has been tricked by
the made-up image of Putin, a fiend for oligarchs and a friend of people, whereas he is, in
fact, a friend of oligarchs, literally.
Then, what is more important. Even if we know little about Putin's life in the 1990s (everything
is deliberately hidden), we know, hey, the entire world knows, how Putin has come to power.
Putin was a protege of Yeltsin, and this Yeltsin's protectionism was not hidden, but absolutely
public and official. Putin is the successor of Yeltsin, directly appointed by Yeltsin, a "legacy
president" whose main goal is to maintain the status quo from the 1990s. I would rater call
him a CEO under the control of the real masters, than an independent leader of the state. How
can one at all believe "Putin is not Yeltsin", when it is contrary to the facts. And again
we know which circles Yeltsin represented, and we know that those circles have had close connections
with the West if not controled by the West, and here we've come to the most interesting part.
The entire post-Soviet Russian elite (oligarchs and government officials) has come come
from the Communist nomenklatura, from the KGB and from the Soviet black market mafia structures
(usually run by Jews, Ukrainians and Asiatics like Georgians, Armenians, Azeris and Uzbeks).
And everybody of them have had many connections with the West, particularly with London, thousands
of Russian oligarchs, higher officials or at least their families live in London, London is
a second (true?) capital of Russia.
So there is no reason, why we must take the Kremlin and the West at face value. Why must
we believe there is a conflict of the planetary scale, when there is none.
Well, I've said much enough (I hope MI6 will not find me; joke), but you can dig further
yourself, everything is in open, the Russian ruling clique does not much hide itself, you do
not need to be a secret agent trying to acquire the secret Kremlin (or rather Westminster?)
documents, you just need to know the right directions of your searches. Just don't allow them
to confuse yourself with the information noise, both from the Kremlin and the West. Sift attentively
thousands of articles about a good Putin and a bad Putin from both the direction, because their
real goal is just to hide the real truth.
from here in the (dying and looted) West, it looks like Russia's middle class is ascendant,
while ours is being systematically murdered off
As for the Russian middle class. Of course, since 2000 the living standards of Russians
have improved greatly. We could argue if it is due magical Putin or high prices of natural
resources. But this only if we compare it with the Sovet pitiful existence and the extreme
poverty of the 1990s. But Even if Russians have now more money, cars, things and all, Russia
outside of Moscow and St.-Petersburg is still and will be for many decades a Second Word country,
in many places even a Third World one. I lived in Western Europe and I can tell the difference.
This is absolutely another different planet. Every bit there is better than in Russia, so Russia
seems quite backward. It is just simply pleasant to live in a First World country. You constantly
complain how bad the life in the West is, but you do not understand your luck that you were
born or live there.
And nothing much have changed since the 1990s, if not since the Soviet times. The entire
country is still ruled by the former Soviet nomenklature, the oligarchs of the 1990s and Western
companies still own and pwn Russia, gigantic bulks of the Russian wealth flow to off-shore
havens, the state budget still consist of >60% of the "natural rent", the high level corruption
is flourishing, a great deal of the budget is embezzled by officials. Maybe the reason why
the average Russians still live decent lives is Russia's wealth so immense, that even if half
of it is stolen by the upper 5-10%, the remaining half is enough for the well-being of the
other 90%. But imagine how well the Russians would live without the robbery by the Kremlin
oligarchic clique.
And don't take official Russian statistics at face value. The Russian middle class hardly
exists. And after 2014 the income of people has been dropping steadily. For the most provincial
cities the picture is following (at 70 roubles per USD):
Lowest 30% earn below $200 per month
Low Middle 40% � $200-$400
High Middle 20% � $400-$600
Upper 5% � $600-$1200
In Moscow, St.-Petersburg and some northern regions these number are 2 times higher, but
they comprise barely 15% of the population.
And we're left with 5%, the clique and their servants.
I can hardly name the people who earns under $400 the "middle class", and the country where
70% earns below that can hardly be called rich (though it is quite developed, comparing with
the Third World). So there are just 5%, max 25%, of the real middle class. And the average
pensions are around $200/month, so no less than 40 mln of senior Russians live for that small
amount of money, and with constantly rising prices it is very difficult to make both ends meet.
And the last. You will complain that Europe is being flooded with immigrants, but Russia
is a last stronghold. But I'll tell you what. Russia is on the second place by immigrant population
after the USA! And they are coming in. Russia has officially 10 mln and unofficially close
to 25 mln of immigrants from Asia. Moscow, in fact, must compete with London by the percentage
of Asiatic immigrants. The Muslim population is rising and the Kremlin openly favours Muslims
and Muslim immigrants.
@Eileen
Kuch You just reproduce the idealized image (either good or bad) of Putin that has been
created by the propaganda machine from both the sides during the past 15 years. As I said above,
Putin is hardly a threat to the oligarchs. Putin hardly persecute any oligarch. There are up
to 100 Russian billionaires, and some thousands of millionaires, but only Khodorkovsky, Lebedev
and maybe a couple of others were really imprisoned. No any other oligarchs have been persecuted.
Never the privatisation of the 1990s was questioned. Never the legacy of Yeltsin was questioned,
rather he is a "hero", an entire Yeltsin museum has been built. The very same oligarchs from
the 1990s, except for maybe some outcasts, are continuing to loot and rob Russian wealth. They
buy entire castles somewhere in England or France, they buy enormous luxury yachts, they have
bought a great deal of the London luxury realty, etc., etc. They roll in money, Russian money.
The only reason the average Russians still live decent is the enormous size of the Russian
wealth, that even scraps are enough for the entire nation to live.
And I'm not that religious, I do not think that the renaissance of religiosity in Russia
is any good, I rather agree with (a rare case) the Marx's opinion about "opium for the people".
It just makes Russian people stupid, superstitious and easy to manipulate. We live in the 21th
century, we do not need 2000-year old fairy tales to be good. Anyway, I have a great respect
for the PAST Russian Christian tradition, I think it is an important part of the Russian culture
and mentality, so I'm strongly against any destruction of it.
However, with both the economics and the culture you seem to present a false dilemma. You
imply that the only alternative to Yeltsin and Putin are Kaganovich and Stalin, whereas I strongly
believe there are many better alternatives.
@Boris
N The overall quality of life in any country and in any generation depends on much more
than annual income, reflected in the amount of money people have at their disposal. In fact,
it's becoming increasingly evident that the more money people have to spend on "toys" and other
unnecessary items, leads to major social problems including atomized families, wide-spread
drug addiction, high suicide rates, mental problems, obesity, and homelessness. Not to speak
of a lowering of moral standards that's simply off the charts � in the wrong direction. It's
obvious that rural Americans (in particular) in the 1920s and 30s, although having little money
at their disposal, enjoyed a much higher quality of life including extended and close knit
families, than the majority of Americans today. I could be mistaken, but I suspect the same
would be true for the average Russian today.
We all know Putin plays footsie with the oligarchs. We all know he pretends to like Bibi
and is a master at realpolitik. But the impression I get is of a man who wrested control of
Russia away from the worst of the oligarchs, while playing nice with the rest of them. That's
how it looked to us from thousands of miles away in the dying West, and firmly under the Zio/Rothschild
boot, that this was/is a great man. A world-class statesman and nationalist who crushed the
fanatical terrorists in Chechnya and mollified the moderate ones with reasonable policies,
and he returned the resources of Russia back the Russian state.
Sure there is massive corruption, and other problems, but considering what the Russian people
have endured with decades of (Jewish imposed) genocidal commie slavery, and then having it
all do a 180 and then being impoverished even worse under the cruel destitution of crony Jewish
'capitalism' that simply handed Russia over to a few Jewish and Russian minions of Rothschild-
to lord it over the dying and starving Russian people- for Putin to have turned this around
is incomprehensible. It's nothing less than an historic accomplishment of a truly great man.
A giant on the world's stage.
He has, it seems to me, nearly single handedly reined in the drooling, frothing Fiend, ripping
to shreds everything it could get its blood dripping teeth on. Libya was the final straw for
Putin, and he alone stood up to the beast when all of Europe were counting their shekels and
tossing their citizens and their nation's dignity onto the Moloch's pyres of war and slaughter
and cowardly appeasement of the Fiend.
Putin said 'enough!' And has stopped them in Syria (for now) when everyone else was
wringing their hands, Putin showed them all how a man with integrity must act, when faced with
a thug and a bully. You stand up to them. Or you cower, and place your fate in their hands,
as Gadhafi had done.
That's sort of how I see it. Yes, he plays ball with some very unsavory types, and corruption
is rampant. But he has done something wonderful Boris.. he has given the Russian people back
their dignity. They have something today that I don't think they've had for generations..
Hope. A shred of pride at being who and what they are; Russians.
How do you put a price on that? How do you quantify that kind of thing. Sure, Americans
may be able to afford more flat screen TVs, with which to watch their culture and heritage
being relentlessly maligned, their identities excoriated as evil, and their culture turned
into a sewer. Oh joy. But how do you put a value on giving to your people a quiet sense of
personal dignity? Vs. pitting them endlessly against each other with raging identity politics
and a race down to the moral abyss of spiritual feculence, writ large.
That is our lot over here in the West Boris, and the SUVs and flat screen TVs just aren't
all that, when you consider the soul and the doomed future of your people.
I will strongly disagree. We have a lot of examples all around the world where the lack
of money and low living standards lead to the same bad things that you have listed. You do
not need to go far, just look at your neighbour countries in Central America, or else you even
might go to your own American poor minority (Black or Hispanic) neighbourhood, where the people
will strongly disagree with you that their living on $10,000/year gives them a great virtue,
like if they have no money to buy "toys" (in fact, first-necessity goods) then they live better
"spiritual" lives. When the poor speak about the spirituality of poverty, this usually means
a getaway from the harsh reality with the help of self-illusion. When the rich speak about
the spirituality of poverty, this usually means they try to cheat the poor.
We all know he pretends to like Bibi and is a master at realpolitik .
1. He's not pretending. There is a reason that Russian nationalists absolutely despise him.
He completely betrayed Iran when he refused to sell them the s-300 until they accepted Obama's
deal.
2. He is extremely conscious of Russian public opinion, and yet still has no problem having
publicly good relations with Netanyahu. That tells you all you need to know about how indifferent
the Russian people are towards the Palestinians. Contrary to your delusions, Russia is not
some sort of alt right paradise as any of the nationalists who actually live in Russia would
be quick to tell you.
He completely betrayed Iran when he refused to sell them the s-300 until they accepted
Obama's deal.
Jesus Greasy, that the realpolitik I was talking about that you even highlighted
in your quote! What he doesn't want is an all out war with the Zio-West!
2. He is extremely conscious of Russian public opinion, and yet still has no problem
having publicly good relations with Netanyahu.
again, he's pretending to like Bibi because Bibi is the king of the Jews and therefore the
default king of the West today. He's Rothschild's number one stooge. Of course Putin has to
play nice with him. But be honest Greasy, no one on this planet actually likes Bibi. That's
like saying you like hemorrhoids. You deal with things like hemorrhoids or Bibi, as the case
may be, but sure as shit don't like them.
Russia is not some sort of alt right paradise as any of the nationalists
no, certainly not. But it's also not a cultural sewer of the Jewish id, that we in the West
all have to marinate in, thankyouverymuch.. not
Bibi rules purely by default. He's not the king of anything. Nasrallah knew what he was
talking about when he said that Sharon was the last King of Israel.
Jesus Greasy, that the realpolitik I was talking about that you even highlighted in your
quote!
But Putin is democratically elected. The only reason he can engaged in realpolitik in the
middle east is because the Russia public doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the Iranians
or Palestinians. The only people in Russia who care about those groups are the nationalists,
who, as I have said, hate Putin's guts.
@Boris
N Moral always come first, with money being secondary. Of course It takes a certain amount
of money for people to live, but in practically every case, the more money immoral people have
at their disposal the lower they sink and the sorrier they get. With Hollywood pukes being
living examples of what money without morals produces. I'm surprised you haven't figured this
out.
@Rurik
I can understand why you have a distorted view of Putin and the Russian life. Because Westerners
simply lack important sources of information about the reality in Russia, you simply do not
live in Russia, do not meet and hear the people everyday, you are not insiders. This is why
I always say that the voice for Russia in the Western media (at least in the non-mainstream
one, because I have no illusion about the MSM) must be given not to West-based either Russophobes
or Russophiles, who practically know nothing, but to middle-aged, middle-class Russians, who
love and understand best their own home. But even in such a case we must have many voices because
no two Russians have a similar point of view, for example, even if I become one of the voices
(I've written quite much here, that many of my comments deserve to become articles on their
own, ha-ha) many Russians will agree with me, many will disagree, and many may have totally
different third, forth, and so on views. The Russian political spectrum is much diverse, there
is no false dichotomy like in the West.
And from that you all have a problem. You get information about Russia either from the
Washington-centric quasi-independent ("independent" in the American political doublespeak always
means independent from everyone but Washington) outlets, like NYT, WP, Fox, CNN, you name it,
and their view of Russia for the past 90 years is quite predictable if not annoying, and I
understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite way,
so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it as something
is white.
On the other hand you have the Kremlin propaganda state machine like RT who obviously
do the same thing as the Washington propaganda machine, but in the opposite direction; or Russophilic
individuals (usually emigres with nostalgia), lone wolf voices like the Saker or Karlin, but
whose voice anyway is irrelevant and illusional because, as I've said, they are outsiders and
know little about the actual Russian life, but they rather might be characterized as positive
interpreters of open sources (and neither the sources nor their interpretations ought to be
true).
Also we have local "opposition" outlets either in Russian like the radio station "Ekho
Moskvy", the TV station "Dozhd", "Novaya Gazeta" and so on, or in English like "The Moscow
Times", but I do not even take them seriously, I consider them as virtually subsidiaries of
the Western MSM (though there is one irony that furiously anti-government "Ekho Moskvy" is
owned by Gazprom).
What I wanted to say, that even if many who are not hopelessly brainwashed understand
that the demonizing of Russia is a lie, it does not make the opposite view automatically right,
and your over-positive opinion is generally illusional. I tried to bring you around, but seemed
to fail, though to change anybody's opinion was not my goal, I was just trying to say my opinion,
be it right or wrong.
Maybe our opinions are heavily influenced by our lives, both you and I may have been disappointed
by our lives in our respective countries, but you believe that there is somewhere a better
land, and it's Russia, while I, in turn, believe the life in the West is better. But there
is one distinction. I've been in both the places and I can compare, but I bet if you come to
Russia and do not become one of the high-paid Western expats who live luxury lives in Moscow,
you'll very soon run off home and your Putinism will fade immediately (though your love to
Russia itself may strengthen, as it has been with many Westerners).
@Greasy
William I do not know what sort of Russian nationalists you are speaking about, simply
because there are not THE Russian nationalists, but one or two dozens of diffused different
small groups with different if not opposite views, who may call themselves or other may call
them "Russian nationalists". Not to mention thousands of common non-partisan Russians who may
call themselves nationalists as well but as well may have thousands of different personal opinions
about the past and the current affairs.
Among those nationalists I know personally, most of them absolutely do not care about Iran,
Israel and Palestine and about the Middle East in general. The interest has only aroused since
the Syrian intervention, but the general opinion about it is negative, because many think that
the war in Syria is utterly inappropriate, when just at the border there is an ongoing unfinished
war with Ukraine. And some nationalists even have a positive view of both Israel and Iran as
good examples of national states, of what Russia must become. And unlike many commenters here,
most (with some exemptions) are not so much obsessed with Israel and Jews, and they do not
care if Putin loves either Israel or Iran, they dislike Putin not for that, but for other mostly
internal problems.
I do not deny the need and the role of good moral, but I have a more materialistic
view of the world, an important if not the fundamental condition for good moral is the full
stomach. Again no need to go far for examples, there is Latin America where people theoretically
have good moral, they all are devoted Catholics, but they live in a chaotic criminal frenzy,
when Detroit would look like a safe haven compared to San Salvador. Do you really think that
if the USA will be as poor as but as "spiritual" as Latin America, the US life will improve?
It works in the opposite direction as well. When people have not enough means,
they have no much time left to think about and to follow good moral, they are simply surviving
as they can, often doing very ugly things. In most cases a society in strong need ends up in
a chaos as we can see it in Africa, the Middle East and Latin America.
In both the cases wealth does not guarantee good moral, but good moral is not an inevitable
result of poverty. Where do you choose to live, in wealthy but "immoral" Geneva or in poor
but "spiritual" San Salvador?
Where do you choose to live, in wealthy but "immoral" Geneva or in poor but "spiritual"
San Salvador?
But San Salvador is just as spiritually sick as the West, just in a different way. A spiritually
healthy society will have low corruption, low violence, respect for women's rights and concern
for the welfare of the weak (the poor, the disabled, the sick). Poverty *can* breed evil, but evil always ultimately breeds poverty.
I do not know what sort of Russian nationalists you are speaking about
The one's who show off their gorgeous girlfriends who have "88″ and bladed swastikas tattooed
on their asses.
And some nationalists even have a positive view of both Israel and Iran as good examples
of national states, of what Russia must become.
They want Russia to become multi culture, failing states, with grinding poverty where the
different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent elite
rules over them? That is what they want Russia to become?
Have you ever read the Kreutzer Sonata? It is the only piece of Russian literature I have
ever read and I really liked it a lot.
The Russian political spectrum is much diverse, there is no false dichotomy like in the
West.
well from what I can glimmer, the 'dichotomy' in Russia seems to go something like either
'we/I like Putin', or 'we/I don't like Putin'.
Perhaps it has something to do with hard politics on the ground, and the reality that it's
this guy that is running things today in Russia, for better or worse.
I understand why you do not believe them and interpret everything they say in the opposite
way, so you have formed a habit that when they say something is black you understand it
as something is white.
I wouldn't quite characterize it in this way. It's true I never believe them, but that doesn't
mean they never tell the truth. Sometimes they mix a little truth in with the lies,
and sometimes they say what's really going on, because by doing so it suits their agenda(s).
When they say the Olympics are happening in Sochi, I believe them. When they say Putin shot
down MH17, I think they're lying. And then with most things in between, I think it's a combination
of lies and truth, always with an agenda in mind. If Putin were assisting with the destruction
of Syria today, like they (the occupied West) did to Iraq and Libya, I think they'd be calling
him a great statesman, and partner in freedom and democracy. It all depends on if he toes the
line.
but you believe that there is somewhere a better land, and it's Russia, while I, in turn,
believe the life in the West is better. But there is one distinction. I've been in both
the places and I can compare
It's true I've never been to Russia, at least not yet. The closest I've came is Slovakia
and Hungary, (but I did meet a beautiful Russian girl when I visited Cuba a few years ago!)
I've never thought life was better in Russia. We do have many blessings in the West. But
today I consider the government of Russia (with all of it's well known corruption and
chicanery) as hands down a thousand times better than what we now have in the West. And the
trajectory of Putin's Russia vs. the US or Germany for instance, I consider as like a country
on the rise, vs. a civilization in rapid (free-fall) decline.
My short take is that after the revolution and the murder of the Tsar and his family, the
Fiend took control of Russia, and set about slaughtering the best of the Russians (and everyone
else they could get their feculent hands on), and imposing a genocidal slavery on those people
for generations. And then one day when they (Rothschild) decided that commie slavery was too
expensive (you had to feed and house the people), they decided to impose a system even more
cruel and fiendish. They'd simply use their puppet, quisling government in Moscow to loot the
wealth and resources of Russia outright, and make Rothschild's minions some of the richest
men in the world overnight, while impoverishing the Russian people to the point of near starvation.
(it's what the do ; )
And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave her
hope, (and an ascendant middle class and pride in Russia's heritage). For the Fiend, this was
an abomination, and ironically enough; Putin was now a new Hitler � especially when he jailed
on of their own (and for hard labor -- It was another Holocaust!). But as long as he
played ball with the West by letting most of the Jewish oligarchs keep their ill-gotten
billions, and went along with atrocities like the savage rape of Iraq, the oligarchs were willing
to ignore what Putin had done to their designs and fun up to a degree.
But then came Libya, and Putin saw that the Fiend was in absolute control of the
West, and must not be fed anymore, lest the Fiend grow and fester and become a dire threat
to Russia itself, (again). So Putin put the kibosh on Syria, and now he's locked in a death
struggle with the Fiend, who is insane with power-lust.
It's a difficult situation to be sure. And that's how I see the West vs. Putin's Russia,
and why I like Putin even with all his warts and faults. At least he's trying to make Russia
great again, and that's why there are many of us in the West who pine for a man like him to
take on the Fiend that has its fangs locked deeply into the jugular of the West.
The only reason he can engaged in realpolitik in the middle east is because the Russia
public doesn't give a rat's ass what happens to the Iranians or Palestinians.
I think they do care what happens to Iran, since it's a close trading partner. And the Palestinians
are just a distant, tragic people to the Russians. Why should they wring their hands, it isn't
them who're foisting the evils upon the Pals, it's us Americans that are doing that.
The only people in Russia who care about those groups are the nationalists, who, as I
have said, hate Putin's guts.
how many Russian nationalists do you know or speak to who are not Jewish, Greasy?
From what I understand, the IDF is chock full of Russian �migr�s, and their take on things
must be skewed by Putin's thwarting of Israel's designs on the Golan.
here's a forum run by an ultra-Russian nationalist
Without spiritual health, economic health is not only meaningless, it's unsustainable.
As we here in America are about to learn the hard way.
having linked to the Pravda forum, I just took a moment to peruse the Pravda front page.
This from an article on Russia today:
Putin has saved the country before and he is saving the country now. We despise all the
fifth column "dissent" that is based on your taxpayer money. Russia will never behave like
Soros, who maintains institutions to overthrow governments, because our leaders are Orthodox
Christians. Capitalism is not our religion. You are addicted to a beautiful body, and we
are addicted to a beautiful soul.
more:
Our aggressiveness exists only in your imagination. The reunification of the Russian
people with the Crimea passed without one single shot, because Russia is more than just a country.
Russia is a territory, which shares a common language, history and culture. We see any attempt
to "reprogram" Russians in Ukraine as a hybrid warfare against us. One can welcome the Scottish
Premier and discuss the likelihood for the UK to fall apart, but one can not support the population
of southern lands of the former Russian Empire in their aspiration to withdraw from Ukraine?
Is this not a double standard?
.. we do not like your determination to make us be like you. We change. Moscow has become
one of the most beautiful capitals in Europe. We do not live up to Western lifestyles, and
we do not "give a damn" if you do not like our way.
I would say that Putin certainly does care about Iran. It doesn't take a genius
to know which nations have been declared evil and targeted by the US, they are frequently named
by traitorous whores like Hillary, Obuma, Biden etc, along with the treacherous neo-cons who
bear responsibility for fomenting wars in the ME.
Putin is smart enough to know that if any nation sits back and waits its turn to be attacked
it will surely be destroyed. He went out on a limb to arrest the destruction of Syria and it
has paid off. He appears to have played his cards remarkably well to date. I can't imagine
that the stratospheric level of approval and support that he receives in Russia is fictional.
I would believe RT News before I would the BBC, ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, DW, Fox and all the
other discredited western "news" outlets.
the 'dichotomy' in Russia seems to go something like either 'we/I like Putin', or 'we/I
don't like Putin'.
To like/dislike Putin is not a political stance but rather a personal opinion. But it does
not explain nor imply any other view. To be precise, several persons can dislike Putin, but
one may be a pro-Western ultra-liberal, another a Stalinist, other a National-Bolshevik, other
a Christian Monarchist, other a racist Nazi, other a pro-Ukrainian Nazi, and so on. It is difficult
to list them all. And they all may have totally different views on many subjects, but just
one thing in common, as you said, a dislike to Putin.
I cannot say for sure for the Western public but I hardly saw such a variety of views. Maybe
the reason why Russians cannot unite and change something, because they are so disintegrated
on many issues.
It's true I never believe them, but that doesn't mean they never tell the truth.
OK, I did not mean that. Of course, when they say that somewhere there has been a tornado,
or, as in your example, a sporting event, or some other trivial factual thing they simply cannot
not to say truth. But when they are trying to create some sort of analysis about hot global
political affairs they usually back up the agenda of their Washington-Brussels masters.
But the agenda of the Kremlin is hardly better . The best option is not to listen them
both.
But today I consider the government of Russia (with all of it's well known corruption
and chicanery) as hands down a thousand times better than what we now have in the West.
Again, you say this because you simply has a very limited range of sources of information.
You just repeat a made-up image of the Russian government or, precisely, of just one person,
Putin. But this is just an image for the outside (non-Russian) public . You need know
more, much more, form a variety of Russian sources, for a long period of time, and then you
might have not the right, but at least a less distorted view. The actual Russian government,
if we put Putin (pun) aside, is comprised of very ugly, greedy, treacherous, hypocritical people,
I simply cannot find the right words for those bastards. They are utterly disgusting. They
have been ruining the country for the past 25 years.
And the trajectory of Putin's Russia vs. the US or Germany for instance, I consider as
like a country on the rise, vs. a civilization in rapid (free-fall) decline.
Russia is on the fall . The crisis of the past two years has just nullified any achievements
of the previous 2004-2014 decade. Russia has practically returned to its starting position.
And nothing says about its rise, everything says the contrary . Russians have entered
a difficult time. They will be remembering 2000-2014 with bitter nostalgia.
And then out of the blue came Putin, who wrested Russia away from the Fiend, and gave
her hope,
Putin did not turn out of blue, he was a member of the 1990s robbing elite, he is a continuation
of Yeltsin, I explained it in my other comments colorfully. Not to mention Putin's "team"
are the very same people from the 1990s. Take anybody and they all were doing some ugly things
in the 1990s, but now they are "respected" officials and "businessmen". The only thing he has
done is to hide this ugly truth under the cover. And millions around the world believe his
deceit, how naive.
The one's who show off their gorgeous girlfriends who have "88″ and bladed swastikas
tattooed on their asses.
If you speaking seriously, what I doubt, then they are a very small, marginal minority.
Since the 2000s being 1488 is a mauvais ton in the Russian national circles, nobody take those
Racial Holy Warriors and fans of Hitler seriously, they are just nutheads.
They want Russia to become multi culture, failing states, with grinding poverty where
the different factions of the population hate each other while a corrupt and incompetent
elite rules over them? That is what they want Russia to become?
Actually, for the past 25 years Russia is becoming "a multi-culture, failing state,
with grinding poverty where the different factions of the population hate each other while
a corrupt and incompetent elite rules over them" . I will add that that elite is in the
West in their minds, and they have to be physically located in Russia just for the sake
of "earning" money.
Of course, no Russian nationalists want this, even the Nazi nuthead minority. When I said
Israel was taken as an example I meant something like
that .
lot's of chafe on that one but you can at least glimmer a nuanced inkling of what the
Russian nationalists are on about
(they love Putin ; )
No, you cannot accidentally pick up some obscure bulletin boards, hosted on a free-hosting
site, which boards nobody knows and cares about.
The actual whole Russian national movement has been being thought through, discussed and
constructed for many years entirely in Russian, in the Russian part of the internet, and not
in English by some pro-Russian foreigners or Russian emigres.
"... After the processes of industrialization and urbanization had completely, there was nowhere for the economy to go, and the low growth combined with the ossification of bureacratic structures and the entrenchment of the World War II generation in power meant a lack of job opportunities. All of this contributed to the malaise that killed productivity and increased alcoholism, creating a self-feedback loop. Yeltsin and his cronies calculated that if the USSR transitioned to a capitalist economy, they stood to make a lot of money, so they met in secret and agreed to its dissolution. The public wanted reform, but they didn't want full-blown capitalism, certainly not of the variety Russia saw in the 90's. ..."
"... Especially considering the fact that Marx was arguably the greatest thinker of the modern era and his contributions were not at all limited to the 'isms' that people fought for in his name, I think a much better topic for a post would have been "common Cold War misconceptions about Russia and Marxism." ..."
I would rather live in Cuba than in Haiti, and the country's economic performance is all
the more impressive considering the economic warfare wrought upon it by the US.
48% of Russians regret the breakup of the Soviet Union, and the second largest political
party in Russia after Putin's is the Communist Party (article from The Nation circa 2012).
And this isn't a political party claiming to bring about a new socialist society but rather
one that promises to bring back the communism of the Brezhnev era.
Russia was a backwards country at the beginning of World War I and saw its industry
annihilated by the war. The peace treaty ceded its industrial heartlands, and then it was
ripped apart by the civil war of the 1920's. But this didn't compare to World War II, which
wiped out an entire generation of Russians.
Yet within 12 years of the war's end, they were the first to put an object into space, and
four years later they were the first to put a human into orbit. They Americans, who had been
unscathed by the war, were blessed with nearly unlimited natural resources and had the most
powerful economy and military in in history, saw their attempt blow up on the launchpad.
At this time in America, people actually thought socialism might win out. The Soviets
certainly thought so. In the first two decades after World War II, their economy was probably
the fastest growing in history. They were so confident that their system was superior that
they assumed they could beat the American capitalists in every way, including providing the
general populace with consumer goods. This promise, made during the "Kitchen Debates" and
throughout the 60's and 70's, when the government officially embraced consumerism, was a
horrible miscalculation that eventually contributed greatly to the public's discontent with
the regime.
After the processes of industrialization and urbanization had completely, there was
nowhere for the economy to go, and the low growth combined with the ossification of
bureacratic structures and the entrenchment of the World War II generation in power meant a
lack of job opportunities. All of this contributed to the malaise that killed productivity
and increased alcoholism, creating a self-feedback loop. Yeltsin and his cronies calculated
that if the USSR transitioned to a capitalist economy, they stood to make a lot of money, so
they met in secret and agreed to its dissolution. The public wanted reform, but they didn't
want full-blown capitalism, certainly not of the variety Russia saw in the 90's.
Especially considering the fact that Marx was arguably the greatest thinker of the modern
era and his contributions were not at all limited to the 'isms' that people fought for in his
name, I think a much better topic for a post would have been "common Cold War misconceptions
about Russia and Marxism."
This is supposed to be a heterodox economics blog but it's always from the Keynesian
perspective and never from the Marxist. Considering Keynes's thoughts on the Labour Party,
for one, I think more perspectives are needed in informing discussion on how to approach
questions of social justice. Marxian economists predicted the crisis just as well as the
Keynesians. Let's listen.
"... All of these works emphasize what was in fact the close integration in many ways of the capitalist and communist worlds. In the 1930s it was the crisis of capitalism that largely helped to preserve the appeal of communism even as it was largely American firms that were being contracted to build socialist factories and import equipment. In the later postwar years the price of oil was critical to understanding some of the early successes and later extreme difficulties of the Soviet and Eastern bloc economy. ..."
Outis, thanks for raising all of these issues for public discussion. There is no question
that a solid historical consideration of the communist experience in the 20th century is
critical to how we think about Marxism and many other leftist ideas and it a decidedly
fraught terrain where greater nuance is desperately needed.
I am surprised that you don't mention more recent historical scholarship on the Soviet
Union and the Eastern bloc countries, however. In your brief note on what you are currently
reading it seems that nearly all of the works are more than a half-century old. While such
dustier tomes are often invaluable, none of them benefited from the archival access, oral
histories, and other sources that have become much more widely available in the last 25
years. There was certainly a lot of dogmatic work that came out in the years after communism
fell–something like Fukuyama's The End of History comes to mind as a quintessential
example of that–but there were also many serious scholars who did not necessarily have
a strong ax to grind for or against communism, historical or otherwise.
For example, I find the historian Stephen Kotkin's work to be quite nuanced without taking
a strong ideological stance. Originally a scholar of Stalinism who wrote on the construction
of a major steel plant in the Urals (Magnetic Mountain, 1995), he went on to also write books
on the collapse of the Soviet Union (Armageddon Averted) and the Eastern European bloc
(Uncivil Society). He has a new biography of Stalin coming out in phases, though I haven't
read it yet.
All of these works emphasize what was in fact the close integration in many ways of
the capitalist and communist worlds. In the 1930s it was the crisis of capitalism that
largely helped to preserve the appeal of communism even as it was largely American firms that
were being contracted to build socialist factories and import equipment. In the later postwar
years the price of oil was critical to understanding some of the early successes and later
extreme difficulties of the Soviet and Eastern bloc economy.
The collapse of the Eastern bloc had much to do with the comparison that socialism itself
encouraged people to make with capitalism by an increasing focus on consumer goods that the
communist system was woefully unable to produce.
All of this is by way of saying that the good historical work out there does not try to
see the communism of the 20th century as some kind of pure or corrupted manifestation of any
ideological system but, like every other kind of political upheaval, a complicated venture
that was inseparable from its many contexts – chief among them its place in a world
global economic system and its self-definition vis-a-vis the actually existing capitalism of
its time. Susan Buck-Morss makes some of these points in her book Dreamworld and Catastrophe
on the similarities between the U.S. and USSR.
In any case, I hope my brief thoughts might help move the discussion of the minefield of
historical communism more firmly onto the terrain of actual history.
"... What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves. ..."
While I respect the author for raising this topic, he seems to fall into "assessment of
the Soviet Experiment" mode in a careless way. I realize I tend to repetition about this, but
it is terribly misleading -- perhaps "disorienting" would be a better term -- to discuss theses
questions without any reference to the tremendous impact external pressures -- call it
"intersystemic conflict," "international conflict," whatever -- had on the course of the
Soviet Union's development. While it could be argued that capitalist economies also faced
external pressures, that would miss the question of how such pressures impact on a
society in the process of formation
. We're talking about questions of constrained
path dependence of a fundamental order that the experimentalist mode of thinking misses. Etc,
etc.
Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the
choice
by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of
developing a transitional program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy
under market socialism. What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a
necessary start-over was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended
outcome, of a section of the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves.
While it is essential to try to determine the viability of alternative economic systems in
comparison what we've got now, doing so without taking into account the tremendously
destructive opposition a transition would face is, in a way, to blithely continue on in a
"Soviet Experiment" mentality. It's obvious that people can enjoyably engage in cooperative
behavior, but if they can do so under a barrage is another matter. The one thing that we can
be certain of is that if capitalist elites aren't thoroughly demoralized they will do
whatever they can to 'prove' TINA.
I was a little confused by this comment. I'm not
opposed
to looking at the impact
of external pressures, but I am opposed to treating them as monocausal.
Your preferred pattern of historical explanation shifts during the course of your comment.
When discussing the USSR in the process of formation, you concentrate on bringing out
external pressures and therefore considering the choices of the leadership as highly
constrained. When discussing the collapse of the Soviet Union, you instead stress the choices
of the leadership elite to "seize an opportunity to enrich themselves."
I'm not even sure why you would assume that your thesis about the elite choosing to engage
in looting is opposed to anything that I'm saying.
I agree with you on is that it is possible to think both about what a self-sustaining
better society might look like, and also the extent to which it's hard to get there within
the constraints of current power structures. They are not the same question, and I think both
are worth pondering.
"Then, as far as the "collapse of the Soviet Union" goes, there's no mention about the
choice by significant sections of the Soviet elite to engage in looting instead of
developing a transitional program that would protect viable sections of the Soviet economy
under market socialism.
What from the standpoint of the Times editorial board looks like a necessary start-over
was in fact a sloppily-carried decision, or merely an unintended outcome, of a section of
the elite seizing an opportunity to enrich themselves.
"
West had spent several billion dollars in cash to bribe significant portions of the Soviet
elite (Soros, via his foundation, was especially active). And large part of the elite war
already poisoned by neoliberalism and wanted to become rich. So while pre-conditions for the
collapse of the USSR were internal (communist ideology was actually discredited in early
70th; economic stagnation started around the4 same time, Communist Party leadership
completely degraded and became a joke in 80th ), external pressures and subversive activity
played the role of catalyst that make the process irreversible.
The fact that neoliberalism was rising at the time means that this was the worst possible
time for the USSR to implement drastic economic reforms and sure mediocre politicians like
Gorbachev quickly lost control of the process. With some important help of the West.
The subsequent economic rape of Russia was incredibly brutal and most probably well
coordinated by the famous three letter agencies: CIA (via USAID and "Harvard mafia") ), MI6 and their German and French counterparts. See
Brain drain, especially to the USA and Israel was simply incredible. Which, while good for
professionals leaving (although tales of Russian Ph.D swiping malls are not uncommon,
especially in Israel ) , who can earn much better money abroad, is actually another form of
neocolonialism for the countries affected:
R. Adam Moody is a Senior Research Associate at the Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Monterey Institute of
International Studies.
by R. Adam Moody
Prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, scientists, engineers, and technicians in the Soviet defense sector were strictly controlled.
Those with access to state secrets had almost no opportunities to travel abroad, even to Eastern Europe. Other contacts with foreign
firms were subjected to stringent centralized oversight, when they were allowed at all. But Soviet military scientists and engineers
traditionally had been among the highest paid individuals.
Those living in closed cities enjoyed even greater benefits in order to compensate them from their almost total isolation from
the rest of the world.
By the late 1980s, however, funding for Soviet science began a steep and steady decline due, among other reasons, to Soviet budget
problems and Gorbachev's perestroika policies, which lessened the traditional Soviet emphasis on military power. This descent
sharpened significantly with the December 1991 breakup of the country, the dissolution of the central planning apparatus, and beginning
of a period of hyperinflation.
Runaway inflation (about 30 percent per month) undercut the former Soviet Union's early efforts to pacify disillusioned scientists
by raising salaries in closed cities, providing additional government funding for science, and alleviating tax burdens. In addition,
"[s]ome of the measures taken by the Russian government were not well thought out." Scientists in the military-industrial complex,
in part because of their formerly privileged status, were especially disillusioned with the turn of events.
With the virtual disappearance of official restrictions on emigration, under-funded and jobless scientists began to look for opportunities
to recoup their crumbling economic prospects abroad. State responses to these tendencies were inadequate and ill-prepared, as none
of the Soviet successor states had effective policies, programs, or institutions in place to mitigate the migratory tendencies of
its elite personnel. Indeed, the few Soviet agencies that had been in place to track such movements were primarily concerned with
the ethnic, rather than the professional, character of migrations. Some Soviet agencies did track the movement of their personnel
independently, but these data are incomplete and inconclusive.
Ironically, during the few years leading up to the Soviet Union's collapse, Western governments and human rights organizations
put significant pressure on the Soviet Union to liberalize its emigration and immigration policies, which it did on May 30, 1991,
with the passing of the "Law on the Procedures of Exit from the USSR and Entry to the USSR for Citizens of the USSR" in the Supreme
Soviet. The law entered into force on January 1, 1993. While the law liberalized entry and exit procedures, it also was supposed
to prevent anyone with access to state secrets from emigrating for at least five years (with the possibility of extension).
The absence of a centralized institution in the Soviet Union to track exit patterns complicates current efforts in the post-Soviet
states and abroad either to quantify the diffusion of expertise or to gain much qualitative data. However, as a result of the international
community's growing level of awareness to the risks associated with the proliferation of Soviet weapons expertise, a significant
cache of data has emerged in open sources since 1991, including in-country reports, insti
Russia's once-great space program is being dragged back to Earth by decades of braindrain and ... manpower after
the Soviet Union's collapse in 1991 and many ...
About 3 million Russians left in the decade from 2005 to 2015, estimates Lev Gudkov, director of the independent Levada Center polling
agency in Moscow.
They included many entrepreneurs -- people capable of building businesses and thus creating jobs -- who were fed up with corruption,
red tape and crooked courts.
One of the surges in Russian emigration came after Putin was re-elected president in 2012.
More than 53,000 Russian professionals left for the United States, Germany, Israel and other countries in 2014 -- the highest
figure in nine years, Bloomberg reported.
The Last but not LeastTechnology is dominated by
two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt.
Ph.D
Copyright � 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org
was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP)
without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively
for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License.
Original materials copyright belong
to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only
in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICEThis site contains
copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically
authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available
to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social
issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such
copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which
such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free)
site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should
be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors
of this site
Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or
referenced source) and are
not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society.We do not warrant the correctness
of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be
tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without
Javascript.
Baker III are just discernible to the trained ear.
Another one quite likely to have been cultivating a quiet exhalation was Hongkong and Shanghai Bank boss Sir William Purvis.
Peter Seaman:
Oswald Howe, Jr:
Southeast Bank:
Bankers Trust:
White & Case:
UBS, Lugano:
Indosuez:
THE KESWICK-JARDINE CONNECTION
Jardine Fleming is also listed in the same document as a "role player", a few lines beneath the name of Tony Buckingham � the high-profile head of Executive Outcomes. In an accompanying financial report it is revealed that EO used account number 600774426 at Jardine Fleming Bank Limited, located at Port Moresby, Hong Kong. The account, rendered as at 15 May 1998, held a balance of US$36 million, and included Tony Buckingham among those authorized to sign cheques on the account.
APARTHEID'S MISSING BILLIONS
Gorbachev Called Coward, Traitor by Former Comrade By VIKTOR K. GREBENSHIKOV May 28, 1992 12 AM
1978: The year today's world was made
'Sex is a gift of God': Pope Francis shares benefits of 'passionate' love, slams pornography
Biggest rift in modern Orthodox history? Russian Church won't work w/ Constantinople-chaired bodies
